The Relationship Between Stressors and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models Kristin Byron Syracuse University Shalini Khazanchi Rochester Institute of Technology Deborah Nazarian Syracuse University Competing theoretical models and equivocal evidence leave unanswered questions regarding stressors’ effect on creativity. The present meta-analysis of 76 experimental studies (including 82 independent samples) aims to clarify this association and identify factors that may explain differences between studies. Our results suggest that the effect of stressors on creative performance depends on how stress-inducing the stressor is and what type of stress is induced. We found a curvilinear relationship between evaluative stress and creativity such that low evaluative contexts increased creative performance over control conditions, whereas highly evaluative contexts decreased creative performance. We found a linearly negative relationship between uncontrollability and creativity such that more uncontrollability decreased creative performance. The results suggest that stressors’ effect on creativity is more complex than previously assumed and points to the need for understanding boundary conditions that shed light on inconsistent findings. Keywords: creativity, originality, stress, stressors, meta-analysis The relationship between stressors (e.g., time pressure or com- petition) and creativity has received considerable attention in the psychological, organizational, and educational literatures. Yet the strength and form of the relationship remains unclear: Studies have found positive (e.g., Baer, 1998), negative (e.g., Amabile, Gold- farb, & Brackfield, 1990), and curvilinear (e.g., Landon & Sued- feld, 1972) relationships between stress and creativity. Further, the distinct cognitive and motivational processes underlying cre- ative—as opposed to routine—performance may limit the extent to which theory and research focusing on routine performance may generalize to creative performance. Therefore, we aim to clarify this association—and examine potential moderators of the associ- ation— by conducting a quantitative synthesis of experimental studies considering stressors’ effect on creative performance. We focus on experimental studies examining stressors for sev- eral reasons. First, such studies offer a key advantage over other research designs in that they help to establish causality. Second, an increasing body of research supports a key underlying assumption: stress-responses, particularly those associated with fear and anger, are often automatic, reflexive, and independent of conscious cog- nition (e.g., Öhman & Wiens, 2004). Third, theoretical support exists for a direct effect between stressors and creativity (e.g., Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Further, the vast majority of studies examining stressors and creativity are experimental studies. The results of this analysis may have numerous theoretical and practical implications. Because we are considering competing the- oretical perspectives, the results can help to resolve the theoretical debate concerning stressors and creativity. They can also help explain variability found among studies and determine when stres- sors may increase or decrease creativity. Lastly, they have practi- cal relevance because determining whether and to what extent various stressors help or hinder creativity may point to interven- tions that can increase creativity. Hypothesized Relationships Between Stressors and Creativity Before we review the various theoretical models and their hypothesized relationships between stress and creativity, we define the primary constructs investigated in this analysis. We use a stimulus definition of stress, consistent with most studies that have examined stress in relation to creativity. Studies employing a stimulus approach are concerned with stressors, that is, physical (e.g., noise) or psychological (e.g., evaluation) conditions that necessitate an adaptive response (Jex, Beehr, & Roberts, 1992; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). We use a product-based approach to creativity, which is the most widely accepted approach to studying creativity: Creativity is the production of ideas, solu- Kristin Byron, Department of Management, Syracuse University; Shalini Khazanchi, Department of Management, Rochester Institute of Technology; Deborah Nazarian, Department of Psychology, Syracuse Uni- versity. We thank Chris Shalley, Teresa Amabile, and Bob Eisenberger for providing valuable suggestions that allowed us to craft a stronger article. In addition, we thank Chuck Pierce and Craig Russell for providing advice on some statistical analyses. Lastly, we owe gratitude to the Earl V. Snyder Innovation Management Center of Syracuse University’s Whitman School for providing financial assistance. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin Byron, Department of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244. E-mail: klbyron@syr.edu Journal of Applied Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 95, No. 1, 201–212 0021-9010/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017868 201