Are Neurotic People Creative? What Research Can and Cannot Say
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research does not support a simple rule that people casually described as “neurotic” are more creative. The everyday label is too vague to function as a research category, and studies that do examine the measurable personality trait neuroticism find a mixed, usually weak, and strongly context-dependent relationship with creativity. The most consistent personality correlate of creative thinking and creative activity is openness to experience, not neuroticism.
There is, however, a smaller and genuinely interesting body of research showing that some processes associated with neuroticism can interact with a creative task under particular conditions. In one set of experiments, people higher in measured neuroticism performed better on specific demanding creativity tasks after recalling a worrisome rather than a happy event. That result is real, but it is a conditional laboratory effect. It does not mean that anxiety, chronic worry, rumination, emotional distress, or being called “neurotic” generally makes a person creative.
The scientifically useful answer is therefore more precise: creativity is multidimensional, neuroticism is dimensional, mood and worry are states or processes, and the everyday word “neurotic” can refer to many different things. Whether any of those factors relates to creativity depends on what was actually measured, which creative outcome was tested, the domain, the task, and the context.
Quick Answer: Are Neurotic People Creative?
Some people who are called “neurotic” are highly creative, and some are not. The label itself predicts very little because it can mean worried, sensitive, perfectionistic, emotionally reactive, self-critical, insecure, controlling, obsessive in everyday speech, or simply stressed. Those are not interchangeable psychological constructs.
When researchers replace the label with measured Big Five neuroticism, the broad evidence still does not show a reliable general creativity advantage. A 2023 meta-analysis of 63 studies involving 24,298 participants found significant but weak associations between divergent thinking and openness to experience, and between divergent thinking and extraversion. Neuroticism was among the traits analyzed, but it did not emerge as one of the significant general correlates highlighted by the meta-analysis. A second-order meta-analysis integrating earlier meta-analytic evidence estimated the neuroticism–creativity association at about r = −.03, essentially a near-zero relationship.
That does not make every positive finding irrelevant. It means the broad claim “neurotic people are more creative” is much stronger than the evidence.
First, “Neurotic People” Is Not a Scientific Population
In contemporary everyday English, “neurotic” is often used for someone perceived as excessively worried, tense, self-conscious, emotionally reactive, preoccupied, or difficult to reassure. Cambridge Dictionary documents anxious and unusual behavior among current meanings of the word. A dictionary can tell us how a word is used; it cannot establish a psychological mechanism, personality score, or diagnosis.
Research normally does not recruit a group called “neurotic people.” It measures a defined variable. That variable might be Big Five neuroticism, state anxiety, negative affect, worry, rumination, sensory sensitivity, creative self-beliefs, divergent thinking, creative achievement, artistic occupation, or something else. Each produces a different scientific question.
This distinction matters because the English Hub’s guide to what a neurotic person means in modern psychology treats the phrase as an everyday label rather than a diagnosis. A person can be called neurotic without having high measured neuroticism, and a person high in neuroticism does not automatically resemble a cultural stereotype of “a neurotic.”
The full modern trait science is covered in Neuroticism and Creativity: What the Evidence Shows. This article uses neuroticism evidence only because it is necessary to answer the colloquial creativity question accurately.
Neurotic, Neuroticism, and Neurosis Are Different Questions
Neurotic as an everyday label
“Neurotic” can be a casual adjective or person-label. It may describe how someone appears in a moment, a recurring behavior, or a social judgment. It has no standardized score and no single set of criteria.
Neuroticism as a personality trait
Neuroticism is a measurable personality dimension involving relatively stable differences in proneness to negative emotional reactions. Benjamin Lahey’s review of neuroticism describes it as a tendency to respond with negative emotions to threat, frustration, or loss. Trait neuroticism is continuous: people vary in degree. It is not equivalent to being labeled neurotic in conversation.
The English Hub’s Neurotic Personality: What People Mean and How It Differs From Neuroticism explains why an everyday personality label cannot be substituted for a Big Five measurement.
Neurosis as a historical-clinical concept
Neurosis belongs to a different historical and clinical lineage. Its changing psychiatric and psychoanalytic meanings are owned by the separate Neurosis cluster. Historical uses of neurosis should not be imported into a modern question about whether people described as neurotic are creative.
Keeping these levels separate prevents a common error: a study of measured neuroticism cannot automatically be rewritten as a claim about everyone who behaves “neurotically,” and a historical description of an artist as neurotic does not establish a current diagnosis or a Big Five score.
What Does “Creative” Mean in Research?
Creativity is not one test score. A widely cited formulation by Runco and Jaeger emphasizes that creativity involves both originality and effectiveness. A response that is merely unusual is not necessarily useful or appropriate, and an effective response that is entirely routine is not especially creative.
Research therefore measures creativity in several ways. Divergent-thinking tasks ask people to generate multiple or unusual ideas. Creative-potential measures estimate capacities such as ideational fluency and originality. Creative activity asks what people actually do in everyday life. Creative achievement concerns recognized accomplishment in domains such as art, writing, science, music, invention, or design. Creative self-beliefs measure whether people see themselves as creative or believe they can perform creatively. These outcomes overlap, but they are not the same thing.
This is one reason headlines about “creative personalities” can become misleading. A trait may correlate with self-rated creativity yet show little relationship to performance. Another may matter for artistic career choice but not for divergent thinking. A third may help under one task condition and hinder under another.
The Strongest General Finding: Openness Is More Consistently Related to Creativity
Across personality research, openness to experience has a much clearer relationship with creativity than neuroticism. The 2023 Big Five and divergent-thinking meta-analysis synthesized 156 effect sizes for openness and 110 effect sizes each for extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Openness showed a weak but reliable association with divergent thinking, r = .20, and extraversion a smaller association, r = .09.
An earlier meta-analysis of scientific and artistic creativity by Gregory Feist likewise found that the largest personality differences characterizing creative groups involved openness and several other traits rather than neuroticism. The study compared scientists with nonscientists, more creative with less creative scientists, and artists with nonartists. It did not support a single universal “neurotic creator” profile.
A second-order meta-analysis of personal factors in creativity reached a similar broad conclusion. Openness was positively associated with creativity, while the synthesized neuroticism association was very small and negative. Different studies, samples, and creativity criteria still vary, but the overall pattern gives little basis for treating neuroticism as a general engine of creativity.
This is especially important for the search question. When a person says, “I overthink everything, so maybe that means I’m creative,” the research does not justify that inference. Overthinking and creative potential are separate questions.
Why the Neuroticism–Creativity Story Persists
The idea is culturally intuitive. Creative work is often portrayed as emerging from anguish, sensitivity, obsession, instability, or relentless self-questioning. Biographies of artists and writers can make this association feel obvious. Psychology, however, must separate a memorable narrative from a generalizable relationship.
Several empirical findings also make the story plausible enough to survive. Some artistic samples have shown greater negative emotionality than comparison groups. Some experiments show that a negative emotional state can benefit particular people on particular creative tasks. Some theories propose that worry or negative affect may increase cognitive persistence. None of those findings is equivalent to a universal law that suffering produces creativity.
The more accurate scientific picture is interactional. Personality, affect, motivation, cognition, expertise, opportunity, domain, task demands, and environment can all contribute to a creative outcome. A single broad adjective throws most of that information away.
The Important Conditional Finding: Worry Helped Some Higher-Neuroticism Participants on Specific Tasks
The study most directly behind the claim that neuroticism can sometimes aid creativity is a 2014 paper by Leung and colleagues. Across three studies, people higher in measured neuroticism showed a stronger preference for recalling worrisome rather than happy experiences before a creative task. In subsequent experiments, higher-neuroticism participants who were induced to recall a worrisome event produced more creative designs or more flexible uses for a brick when the task was cognitively demanding.
This is an intriguing result because it suggests an interaction among a trait, an emotional state, and a task. The authors interpreted the findings through instrumental emotion regulation: an unpleasant but trait-consistent emotional state may, in some circumstances, feel functionally useful for performance.
The finding has clear boundaries. The studies did not show that chronic anxiety improves a person’s life, that rumination is necessary for artistic achievement, that people with anxiety disorders are more creative, or that everyone high in neuroticism should deliberately make themselves worried. They tested specific manipulations and specific creative outcomes.
It is also possible for an interaction to exist even when the average relationship between neuroticism and creativity is close to zero. If a trait helps in one context, hinders in another, and does little in a third, the overall correlation can be small while conditional effects remain scientifically interesting.
A Plausible Mechanism: Cognitive Persistence, Not “Neurosis”
A theoretical account by Baas and colleagues describes two broad pathways to creativity: cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence. Flexible processing can support movement among categories and remote ideas; persistence can support sustained, systematic exploration of a problem. Their model proposes that approach-related characteristics such as openness may often support flexibility, while avoidance-related characteristics such as negative affectivity or neuroticism may, under the right circumstances, support persistence.
The phrase “under the right circumstances” is doing important scientific work. A mechanism is not a guarantee. Persistence can help when a problem rewards sustained effort, but the same anxious perseveration can also consume attention, narrow behavior, delay completion, or turn into repetitive thinking that no longer advances the work.
This mechanism is therefore better stated as a conditional hypothesis: some people, in some states, on some demanding tasks, may convert negatively toned arousal into sustained creative effort. That is very different from saying neurotic people are naturally more creative.
Negative Mood Does Not Generally Create Creativity
A major meta-analysis of 25 years of mood–creativity research synthesized 102 effect sizes. Positive moods produced more creativity than mood-neutral controls, with an overall effect of about r = .15. Negative moods did not significantly differ from neutral mood overall, and positive versus negative mood also did not yield a simple universal difference.
Those results undermine another popular shortcut: “sadness, anxiety, or worry unlocks creativity.” Negative affect can influence processing in multiple ways. Activation, motivational orientation, task demands, and regulation matter. Sometimes unpleasant states may encourage persistence; sometimes they impair concentration, flexibility, working memory, sleep, or motivation. An average effect does not authorize a prescription for distress.
For a person who already experiences significant worry or emotional pain, there is no scientific reason to preserve the distress out of fear that becoming calmer will remove creativity. A creative practice can be supported directly through skill, time, experimentation, feedback, curiosity, persistence, and environmental conditions.
Not Every Study Points in the Same Direction
The literature contains findings that cut against a simple positive neuroticism–creativity story. In three experiments by Xu and Brucks, mortality salience was less likely to increase creative interest among participants higher in neuroticism. That study addressed a particular existential-threat context and creative interest rather than general creative ability, but it illustrates why the relationship cannot be reduced to “more neurotic equals more creative.”
A laboratory study by Bridges and Schendan examined sensitivity, Big Five traits, negative affect, and several creativity measures. Sensitivity and openness were the variables that consistently related to creative outcomes in that study; negative-affect-related factors did not provide the expected creativity advantage. Again, the result is not a final verdict on every form of creativity, but it points toward more specific constructs than a broad neurotic stereotype.
Contradictory and conditional results are exactly what we should expect when both sides of the proposed relationship are broad. Neuroticism contains multiple facets, creativity has multiple forms, and the same person can perform differently across domains and situations.
Artists, Scientists, and Everyday Creativity May Show Different Patterns
Domain matters. A trait profile that appears among visual artists may not characterize creative scientists, entrepreneurs, comedians, engineers, or people doing everyday creative problem solving. Feist’s meta-analysis explicitly separated artists, scientists, and levels of scientific creativity, which is one reason its findings should not be compressed into one personality stereotype.
Creative achievement also depends on more than idea generation. In a study of 297 adults, Jauk, Benedek, and Neubauer found that openness and creative-potential measures predicted everyday creative activities, while intelligence predicted creative achievement. Creative activity itself helped connect potential with achievement. The model is useful because it shows how different ingredients can matter at different stages.
Someone can therefore have a rich imaginative life without producing public achievements, generate many ideas without completing them, or achieve creatively because expertise and persistence allow promising ideas to be developed. A broad label such as neurotic cannot tell us which part of that pathway is strong.
Creative Self-Beliefs Are Not the Same as Creative Performance
Another source of confusion is the difference between feeling creative and demonstrating creativity. A meta-analysis by Karwowski and Lebuda found a strong positive relationship between openness and creative self-beliefs and a small negative relationship between neuroticism and those self-beliefs. That outcome concerns creative self-concept and creative self-efficacy, not an objective verdict on how creative a person is.
Higher neuroticism can plausibly affect confidence, self-evaluation, and willingness to claim a creative identity even when creative ability is unchanged. Conversely, a person can confidently identify as creative without producing highly original or effective work. Research questions must therefore specify whether they measure belief, behavior, performance, activity, or achievement.
This distinction is especially relevant online, where “creative person” often blends self-image, occupation, talent, and measurable performance into one category.
Does Overthinking Make You More Creative?
Not by itself. “Overthinking” is an informal umbrella term. It can refer to worry about future threat, rumination about the past, indecision, mental review, perfectionistic checking, self-criticism, or simply sustained reflection. Some forms of sustained thought can support problem solving; repetitive negative thinking can also become circular and unproductive.
Creative work needs both generation and selection. Dwelling longer on a problem can occasionally uncover a novel connection, but time spent thinking is not automatically high-quality exploration. A mind can persist productively, or it can revisit the same feared conclusion without generating new information.
The useful question is not “Am I an overthinker, therefore creative?” It is “What does my thinking do?” Does it generate alternatives, test assumptions, combine distant ideas, improve a draft, and lead to action? Or does it repeatedly simulate failure, seek certainty that cannot be obtained, and postpone completion? Those are psychologically different processes.
Does Anxiety Make People More Creative?
Anxiety is an emotion and, in clinical contexts, can also be part of a defined disorder. It should not be treated as a synonym for neuroticism or for the everyday word neurotic. Anxiety can sometimes increase vigilance and effort, but high arousal can also interfere with attention, working memory, flexibility, sleep, and willingness to take exploratory risks.
The Leung experiments show one conditional route through worry; the broader mood meta-analysis does not show a general creativity advantage for negative mood. That combination is a good example of how science should be read: a specific interaction can be meaningful without overturning the broader pattern.
If anxiety is persistent, difficult to control, distressing, or impairing, the relevant question belongs to assessment and treatment of the underlying anxiety pattern or disorder. Creativity is not a reason to leave clinically significant distress unaddressed.
Does Sensitivity Make People More Creative?
Sensitivity is another word that can mean several things. Emotional sensitivity, sensory-processing sensitivity, attention to internal states, empathy, aesthetic sensitivity, and general negative emotionality are not interchangeable.
The Bridges and Schendan study is useful precisely because it attempted to separate sensitivity from negative affect and Big Five traits. In that sample, sensitivity and openness predicted some creative outcomes while negative-affect-related factors did not. The result suggests that a person may experience themselves as deeply responsive to stimuli or aesthetics without that sensitivity being reducible to neuroticism.
So the stereotype “sensitive artist equals neurotic artist” collapses distinctions that research can actually examine.
Does Perfectionism Make People More Creative?
Perfectionism can support careful revision, high standards, and skill development, but it can also produce avoidance, excessive checking, procrastination, fear of evaluation, and difficulty finishing. Calling perfectionism “neurotic” hides those mechanisms.
For creativity, the key distinction is between standards that improve a work and evaluative loops that prevent experimentation or completion. A person may generate original ideas and then suppress them because they feel imperfect. Another may use high standards to refine a promising idea into an effective product. Those are different functional patterns even if both people describe themselves as perfectionists.
Perfectionism has its own specialist literature and future English Hub territory. This article does not turn it into evidence for or against neuroticism.
Are Creative People More Likely to Have Mental Illness?
This is a different question from whether neuroticism relates to creativity. Mental disorders are clinical conditions; neuroticism is a personality trait; “neurotic” is an everyday label. Merging them recreates the old “mad genius” stereotype rather than clarifying the evidence.
For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis of creativity and mood disorder found that results differed depending on whether researchers compared creativity in clinical versus nonclinical samples, compared mood-disorder prevalence in creative versus noncreative groups, or correlated dimensional symptoms with creativity. The overall literature was heterogeneous rather than a simple proof that psychopathology produces creativity.
A creative person can have a mental disorder, and a person with a mental disorder can be creative. Neither fact makes disorder a prerequisite for creativity. Clinical symptoms deserve to be evaluated on their own consequences for health and functioning.
Can High Neuroticism and High Creativity Coexist?
Yes. A near-zero average association does not mean the two cannot coexist. It means knowing one gives little general information about the other. A person can score high in neuroticism and be highly creative, score low in neuroticism and be highly creative, or fall anywhere between.
Personality dimensions also combine. A person can be high in both neuroticism and openness. In such a profile, curiosity, imagination, aesthetic engagement, or intellectual exploration may support creativity while negative emotionality shapes how the person experiences uncertainty, criticism, or risk. The creative outcome cannot be attributed to whichever trait makes the better story.
Likewise, individual coping and environment matter. Supportive conditions, expertise, access to tools, freedom to experiment, feedback, and persistence can influence whether potential becomes activity and achievement.
Can Low-Neuroticism People Be Highly Creative?
Absolutely. Emotional stability does not imply conventionality, lack of imagination, or absence of artistic depth. Openness and neuroticism are separate dimensions in Big Five models. Someone can be emotionally stable and highly open to ideas, aesthetics, fantasy, novelty, and intellectual exploration.
The broad research pattern makes this unsurprising. If openness is more consistently associated with creativity and neuroticism is weak or inconsistent, there is no scientific basis for treating emotional suffering as an entry ticket to creative work.
What Research Can Reasonably Say
The evidence supports several bounded conclusions. First, “neurotic people” is not a standardized research category, so direct generalizations from everyday labeling are weak. Second, measured neuroticism does not show a strong general positive relationship with creativity across the literature. Third, openness to experience has a more consistent positive association with divergent thinking and creative activity. Fourth, some context-specific interactions involving neuroticism, worry, negative affect, and task demands are plausible and empirically documented. Fifth, domain and outcome matter: artistic occupation, divergent thinking, creative self-beliefs, everyday activity, and recognized achievement are different endpoints.
The strongest formulation is therefore conditional: neuroticism may influence creativity through particular emotional and motivational processes in particular contexts, but it is not a general marker of creativity.
What Research Cannot Say
Research cannot infer that a person is creative because friends, a partner, or the person themselves call them neurotic. It cannot infer a Big Five trait score from ordinary language. It cannot diagnose an anxiety disorder, OCD, depression, personality disorder, or any other condition from creative habits, worry, sensitivity, or perfectionism.
It also cannot show from a correlation that neuroticism causes creativity. Creative work may shape emotion and identity; people may select domains that fit their existing traits; third variables can influence both; and observed relationships may depend on measurement.
Finally, research does not establish that reducing distress will destroy creativity. That belief can become harmful if it persuades someone to protect anxiety, insomnia, rumination, substance use, or untreated symptoms as though suffering were the source of their talent.
If You Think Your “Neurotic Side” Helps Your Creativity
Translate the label into the process you actually value. Perhaps you notice details other people miss. Perhaps you persist longer with unresolved problems. Perhaps emotional intensity gives you material for writing. Perhaps uncertainty pushes you to research. Perhaps self-criticism sometimes improves revision. Once the useful process is named, it can often be cultivated without preserving every cost that travels with it.
For example, detail sensitivity can be paired with deliberate stopping rules. Persistence can be paired with breaks and feedback. Emotional material can be recorded without remaining in a high-arousal state. Revision can be separated from idea generation so that evaluation does not suppress experimentation too early.
This is a more evidence-compatible approach than building a fixed identity around being “a neurotic creative.”
If Creativity Is Mixed With Distress
The target for help is the underlying difficulty, not a personality stereotype. Persistent worry can be assessed as worry. Repetitive negative thinking can be described as rumination or another defined process. Compulsive checking and reassurance seeking require attention to their function and broader pattern. Severe anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, substance use, or other significant symptoms deserve their own assessment.
The English Hub article Am I Neurotic? How to Understand the Label Without Self-Diagnosing offers a framework for translating the word neurotic into states, behaviors, traits, symptoms, and clinical questions without turning a label into a diagnosis.
If the issue is whether the label represents a strength or a cost, Is Being Neurotic Bad? Costs, Context, and Possible Strengths addresses that separate intent. Neither article treats creativity, worry, or sensitivity as proof of disorder.
A Better Way to Ask the Question
Instead of asking “Are neurotic people creative?”, ask which specific relationship you want to understand. Is higher measured neuroticism associated with divergent thinking? Does worry change creative performance under cognitive load? Are artists more emotionally reactive than nonartists? Does sensitivity predict creative achievement after controlling for neuroticism? Does rumination help or hinder completion? Does anxiety interfere with creative work?
Each version can be tested with an appropriate construct and outcome. The everyday label cannot do that work.
This is the broader logic of the Neurotic Person & Neurotic Behavior cluster: everyday label → what the speaker may mean → precise psychological construct or status → plausible mechanism → scientific evidence → alternative explanations → practical implications → the specialist cluster that owns the construct.
Bottom Line
Are neurotic people creative? Some are, but research does not support “neurotic people” as a generally more creative class. The strongest broad personality evidence points more consistently to openness to experience. Measured neuroticism has a weak, inconsistent, or near-zero average relationship with many creativity outcomes, while particular studies show context-specific interactions in which worry or negative affect can help some higher-neuroticism participants on demanding creative tasks.
The scientifically defensible conclusion is neither “neuroticism kills creativity” nor “suffering creates genius.” Creativity is produced by interacting cognitive, personality, motivational, emotional, domain, and environmental factors. A vague everyday label cannot stand in for that system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are neurotic people more creative than other people?
There is no reliable general evidence that people casually called neurotic are more creative. Studies of measured neuroticism show mixed and usually weak relationships, while openness to experience is a more consistent personality correlate of creativity.
Does neuroticism cause creativity?
Research has not established a general causal effect in which neuroticism makes people creative. Some experiments show conditional interactions between neuroticism, worry, and task demands, but those effects do not support a universal causal claim.
Why are artists sometimes described as neurotic?
Some artistic samples have differed from comparison groups on negative emotionality and related traits, but artistic domain, selection effects, culture, occupational demands, and measurement all matter. The stereotype should not be generalized to every artist or every creative person.
Does worrying help creativity?
Not in general. One experimental program found that induced worry could improve specific creative-task performance among people higher in neuroticism under demanding conditions. Meta-analytic mood evidence does not show a general creativity benefit for negative mood.
Does overthinking mean I am creative?
No. Overthinking is an informal label that may refer to worry, rumination, indecision, checking, or sustained reflection. Creativity requires outcomes such as original and effective ideas or products; repetitive thinking alone does not establish creativity.
Can reducing anxiety make me less creative?
There is no good evidence that clinically meaningful anxiety must be preserved to protect creativity. Useful creative processes—curiosity, persistence, imagination, emotional observation, experimentation, and skill—can be supported directly.
Is neuroticism the same as emotional sensitivity?
No. Neuroticism concerns proneness to negative emotional reactions, while sensitivity can refer to several different constructs, including sensory or aesthetic sensitivity. Some studies find sensitivity predicts creativity even when negative affect and Big Five traits are considered.
Can an emotionally stable person be highly creative?
Yes. Emotional stability and openness are separate personality dimensions. A person can be low in neuroticism and highly open, imaginative, curious, and creatively accomplished.
Is being creative a sign of mental illness?
No. Creativity is not a diagnostic sign. Mental disorders require defined symptom patterns, duration, severity, distress or impairment, and differential assessment. Creative ability or occupation cannot diagnose a disorder.
What personality trait is most consistently linked with creativity?
Across Big Five research, openness to experience is the most consistent positive correlate. The strength varies by creativity measure and domain, and no single personality trait determines whether a person will become creatively accomplished.
Related Articles
References
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806. PubMed / DOI 10.1037/a0012815
Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(10), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062
Bridges, D., & Schendan, H. E. (2019). The sensitive, open creator. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.016
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neurotic
da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. PubMed / DOI 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
Grajzel, K., Acar, S., & Singer, G. (2023). The Big Five and divergent thinking: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 214, 112338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112338
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28(1), 95–105. PMC / DOI 10.1002/per.1941
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The Big Five, the Huge Two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000035
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. PMC / DOI 10.1037/a0015309
Leung, A. K.-Y., Liou, S., Qiu, L., Kwan, L. Y.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y., & Yong, J. C. (2014). The role of instrumental emotion regulation in the emotions–creativity link: How worries render individuals with high neuroticism more creative. Emotion, 14(5), 846–856. PubMed / DOI 10.1037/a0036965
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Taylor, C. L. (2017). Creativity and mood disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1040–1076. PubMed / DOI 10.1177/1745691617699653
Xu, H., & Brucks, M. L. (2011). Are neurotics really more creative? Neuroticism's interaction with mortality salience in determining creative interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2010.539962