View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test--A New Measurement Method for Malevolent Creative Behavior

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test--A New Measurement Method for Malevolent Creative Behavior
Language: English
Authors: Ruiyi Tang (ORCID 0009-0008-6752-7997), Qiangang Li, Zhe Gong (ORCID 0000-0001-5248-0892)
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Creativity, Art Expression, Correlation, Measures (Individuals), Behavior
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.1523
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: This study introduces the malevolent creativity Graffiti test (MCGT), based on the Experimental Graffiti paradigm, as a measure of malevolent creative (MC) behavior. The malevolent creativity test (MCT) and the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) were used in two separate studies to assess the validity of the MCGT. Study 1 examined graffiti with a target of MC under two conditions: an imagined (MCGT1) and a recall (MCGT2) condition, involving 111 valid participants. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between MCGT1 and MCT, but no significant correlation with MCBS. MCGT2 showed no significant correlation with either MCT or MCBS. Study 2 explored graffiti without an MC target in a real competitive context (MCGT3) and graffiti with an MC target in a real provocative context (MCGT4), involving 126 valid participants. Both MCGT3 and MCGT4 demonstrated a significant positive correlation with MCBS. The associations between different types of MCGTs and established MC measures (i.e., MCT and MCBS) suggest that the MCGT holds promise as an effective tool for assessing MC behavior. This development of the MCGT addresses some limitations of current MC measurement methods and opens new avenues for research in malevolent creativity.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483088
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHhEzXmzCxz94wx81yzLd31AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEa4cYIYHKB8MznYOAIBEICBm_0aTB4XLZhJ_tzUzuDwkB6N2CDXF_oD5zQJTd1Hc49k7xystRjVs-jDnIuyKsWYJb9rgkSW1aNMgOahaD35M1dzrXfKBpUTq6RNlqa7rt-SXyPhlaj5-IxXNQCsat7K971faaCTRFCOOGsrj8gvddFOmsxorWQDB5Ubep_zvfpA1Dq5PTvLFanpzEgOlyiCy5N7utl8TXtrt-Gh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187843387;3u701sep.25;2025Sep11.06:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187843387-1">Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test—A New Measurement Method for Malevolent Creative Behavior </title> <p>This study introduces the malevolent creativity Graffiti test (MCGT), based on the Experimental Graffiti paradigm, as a measure of malevolent creative (MC) behavior. The malevolent creativity test (MCT) and the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) were used in two separate studies to assess the validity of the MCGT. Study 1 examined graffiti with a target of MC under two conditions: an imagined (MCGT1) and a recall (MCGT2) condition, involving 111 valid participants. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between MCGT1 and MCT, but no significant correlation with MCBS. MCGT2 showed no significant correlation with either MCT or MCBS. Study 2 explored graffiti without an MC target in a real competitive context (MCGT3) and graffiti with an MC target in a real provocative context (MCGT4), involving 126 valid participants. Both MCGT3 and MCGT4 demonstrated a significant positive correlation with MCBS. The associations between different types of MCGTs and established MC measures (i.e., MCT and MCBS) suggest that the MCGT holds promise as an effective tool for assessing MC behavior. This development of the MCGT addresses some limitations of current MC measurement methods and opens new avenues for research in malevolent creativity.</p> <p>Keywords: malevolent creativity; malevolent creative behavior; graffiti test</p> <p>Malevolent creativity (MC) refers to creativity deliberately aimed at causing harm to others (Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]). Since its conceptual introduction, numerous studies have identified various factors influencing MC, including physiological factors (Perchtold‐Stefan, Rominger, Papousek, & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]), the external environment (Geng et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]), personality traits (Lee & Dow, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]), and internal states and processes such as cognition (Tong, Shi, Gu, & Lu, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref5">53</reflink>]), emotion (James, Clark, & Cropanzano, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]), arousal (Perchtold‐Stefan, Rominger, & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]), and motivation (Baas, Roskes, Koch, Cheng, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). Researchers have also explored the neural mechanisms underlying MC from a cognitive neuroscience perspective (Perchtold‐Stefan, Papousek, & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref9">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Maslow ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]) famously stated that "if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as a nail" (Watts & Higham, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref11">57</reflink>]). This metaphor highlights the critical role of tools in problem‐solving and discovery. The development and refinement of measurement tools are fundamental to advancing research in MC. Currently, three main tools are used to measure MC: the divergent thinking task, which assesses the divergent thinking aspect of MC; the problem‐solving task, which generates solutions in specific contexts; and the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS), which relies on self‐reports of daily behaviors.</p> <p>The divergent thinking task, based on Guilford's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]) Alternative Uses Task, was first employed by Lee and Dow ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]) to measure MC. This task asks participants to generate as many uses as possible for common objects (e.g., a brick or a pencil), including malevolent ideas (e.g., using a brick to hit someone or grinding pencil lead into powder as poison). A ratio score is then calculated by dividing the number of malevolent solutions by the total number of solutions, providing a reliable measure of an individual's MC level. Studies have shown that this task effectively captures the divergent thinking process associated with MC, reflecting both the fluency and originality of malevolent ideas (Lee & Dow, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The problem‐solving task, first introduced by Clark and James ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]), requires participants to propose solutions for negatively oriented situations. For instance, a scenario might involve a tennis match where the participant must devise ways to "accidentally" injure their opponent to win (Yu, Qiao, & Hao, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref16">59</reflink>]). Participants generate creative and original solutions, which are then evaluated by experts based on creativity, logic, and feasibility. Unlike the divergent thinking task, this method focuses more on the solutions themselves rather than the thinking process (Gong & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on both tasks, Harris, Reiter‐Palmon, and Kaufman ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]) refined the scoring method by incorporating both negativity and originality into the evaluation. Solutions high in both dimensions are considered indicative of MC, and the number of such solutions reflects the level of MC. This approach aligns more closely with the conceptual definition of MC as both creative and harmful, thus improving measurement accuracy (Hao, Tang, Yang, Wang, & Runco, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]). This refined scoring method has been frequently combined with the problem‐solving task and used as the malevolent creativity test (e.g., Geng et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger, Szabo, & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref21">45</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Rominger, & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref22">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>The MCBS was developed by Hao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]) using the framework of the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]). The MCBS assesses an individual's tendency toward MC through self‐reports of daily behaviors, with 13 items spanning three dimensions: hurting people, lying, and playing tricks. A five‐point Likert scale is used, and the total score reflects an individual's MC attitude. The scale's reliability and validity were initially confirmed by Hao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]) and, due to its brevity and ease of use, it has been applied in several empirical studies (e.g., Al‐Mahdawi et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]; Malik, Shahzad, Waheed, & Yousaf, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref28">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-2">THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EXISTING MEASUREMENT METHODS</hd> <p>While these measurement tools have been widely used in MC research and have contributed to its development, they still exhibit several shortcomings.</p> <p>The divergent thinking task, for example, is criticized for sometimes failing to capture the originality of harmful uses of common objects, as these uses are not always creative (Gong & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]). As a result, some argue that this task lacks internal validity and does not adequately assess the originality of MC solutions (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, the problem‐solving task have limitations. Negatively oriented problems can be solved in neutral or even positive ways (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]). However, original solutions that are non‐malicious may still be categorized as MC solutions in the scoring system, thereby undermining the validity of the measurement (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]). While the improvements proposed by Harris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]) address some of these issues, they introduce new challenges, such as overly strict selection criteria for MC solutions, which can make the results less sensitive to experimental manipulation. Additionally, the complex scoring procedure demands considerable time and effort (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>As for the MCBS, studies by Waldie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref36">55</reflink>]) and Al‐Mahdawi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]) have questioned its validity, particularly its ability to measure creative or malevolent thinking accurately. Some researchers argue that the MCBS primarily reflects malevolent ideation rather than actual malevolent creative behaviors (Al‐Mahdawi et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]; Mitchell & Reiter‐Palmon, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond concerns about reliability and validity, there is a significant gap in the measurement of behavioral indicators of MC. Current tools like the divergent thinking and problem‐solving tasks rely on self‐reported solutions, which may not accurately reflect actual behavior. The solutions conceived in one's mind may differ from what is ultimately enacted in real life, as factors such as the situation, internal states, and available resources influence whether harmful ideas are realized (Allen & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]; Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]). Although someone may devise a creative and harmful plan, they might not follow through due to constraints like time or circumstances. Additionally, the MCBS focuses on stable tendencies toward MC as reflected in daily behavior, but does not account for how experimental manipulations might influence MC in specific situations (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). As a result, the MCBS may not capture the immediate impact of experimental conditions on MC behavior.</p> <p>In general, behavioral indicators might better reflect real‐world MC behavior, offering more realistic and representative measures. Furthermore, focusing on behavioral indicators may be particularly valuable in intervention research, allowing for the exploration of methods to reduce or prevent malevolent creative actions from both a process and outcome perspective.</p> <p>Given these gaps, the development of a measurement tool that captures behavioral indicators of MC is crucial for expanding current methods and providing researchers with more comprehensive tools. This study aims to address this need by developing a measurement paradigm for MC behavior and testing its validity, drawing inspiration from the Experimental Graffiti Test in the aggression domain.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-3">GRAFFITI AND MC</hd> <p>The debate surrounding whether graffiti is an art form or a criminal act has been ongoing for decades (Gómez, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]; Halsey & Young, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]; McAuliffe & Iveson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]; White, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref46">58</reflink>]). While this controversy remains unresolved, a significant body of research suggests that graffiti often reflects aggressive tendencies (Mršević, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]; Norlander, Nordmarker, & Archer, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]; Ritter & Eslea, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>]). Graffiti artists may intentionally use this medium to express aggression toward a target, such as through fear‐mongering (Gómez, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]), property damage (Carroll, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref51">8</reflink>]), or conveying insulting messages (Mršević, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>]) among other aggressive acts. Some experimental studies even used graffiti as a behavioral indicator of aggression (Korytnyk & Perkins, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref53">27</reflink>]; Norlander et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref54">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graffiti, however, also functions as a form of art (McAuliffe & Iveson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]), enabling individuals to creatively process their aggressive impulses, presenting these behaviors in a more imaginative manner. People may engage in creative expression of aggression through graffiti for various reasons, such as seeking positive emotional experiences (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]) or achieving more effective harm (Cropley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]). Thus, individuals may choose graffiti as a medium to fulfill both their emotional desires and aggressive goals, with creative graffiti serving as a subtle form of attack or a camouflage for their true intentions, aligning with the concept of MC.</p> <p>Research supports the connection between graffiti, aggression, and creativity. Norlander et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]) were the first to use the Experimental Graffiti Test to examine how alcohol, frustration, and gender influence aggression, with graffiti seen as a form of indirect aggression. In their study, participants used pens to graffiti on a religious painting for seven minutes, and raters scored their work from different viewpoints such as the degree of destruction, aggression, and sexuality. Results showed that women scored higher than men in both destructiveness and aggression, possibly due to women's greater creativity (Norlander et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref59">41</reflink>]). Later studies have confirmed the positive correlation between graffiti, aggression, and creativity (Nordmarker, Norlander, & Archer, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref60">39</reflink>]; Norlander, Erixon, & Archer, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>In conclusion, graffiti can be a useful behavioral indicator of an individual's level of MC. Considering the substantial research on MC mechanisms (Baas et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]; Lee & Dow, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref63">29</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger, & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref64">44</reflink>]), it is plausible that traits or situational factors promoting MC may also encourage individuals to express it through graffiti. For those with higher MC scores, graffiti may be a medium for both aggression and creativity. In experimental contexts, we suggest that under certain conditions—such as experiences of competition or provocation—individuals might express creative and malicious behaviors via graffiti.</p> <p>Moreover, since the goal of MC is to inflict harm, often involving ethical and legal violations (Cropley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]), ethical considerations are crucial when inducing MC behaviors in the lab to prevent harm to participants or others. Graffiti, as an artistic form, allows for controlled expression of MC in the lab. Compared to other potentially harmful MC behaviors (e.g., crimes or terrorist acts), graffiti offers a safer outlet, reducing legal and moral consequences.</p> <p>Thus, we propose the malevolent creativity Graffiti test (MCGT) to better capture true MC behavior. Existing MC measurement methods can be categorized into two types: those involving a specific condition and target (The solutions provided by participants are aimed at inflicting malevolence on an individual within a negatively oriented situation) and those without target and condition (e.g., the divergent thinking task, MCBS). Graffiti can involve both creativity and aggression, but this does not mean it must always be an MC expression. The level of destructiveness in graffiti can vary based on intent (Nordmarker, Hjärthag, Perrin‐Wallqvist, & Archer, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>]). Without a clear MC target, participants may produce nonaggressive, non‐destructive graffiti, which doesn't accurately reflect their MC level. Studies suggest that negatively oriented situations can enhance aggression and MC (Gummerum, López‐Pérez, Van Dijk, & Van Dillen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]; Malik et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]), and people prefer to direct MC toward identifiable targets rather than ambiguous ones (Nguyen, Walters, d'Amato, Miller, & Hunter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]). Therefore, graffiti with a clear condition and target is likely to better reveal an individual's MC level.</p> <p>By combining research on MC and aggression, we identified three main ways to induce MC and aggression in participants: imagining a scenario (Harris & Reiter‐Palmon, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref71">22</reflink>]), recalling past experiences (Chan & Arvey, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref72">9</reflink>]; Fu & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]), and creating real lab situations (Baas et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]; Mischkowski, Kross, & Bushman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>]). Using these methods, we designed various MCGTs where participants engaged in graffiti under imagined, recalled, or real conditions. Since negative‐oriented situations are effective in triggering MC and aggression, all conditions in this study were negative (e.g., involving revenge, sabotage, or competition). Study 1 had participants graffiti under imagined and recall conditions, where they didn't experience these scenarios firsthand. Study 2 involved real competitive and provocative conditions, including a graffiti test with a specific MC condition but no target, enabling us to assess the impact of the MC target on graffiti behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-4">STUDY 1: VALIDITY OF MCGT UNDER IMAGINED AND RECALL CONDITIONS</hd> <p>Following the methods of inducing MC and aggression through imagined and recall conditions, we designed two types of MCGTs for Study 1. Participants were required to graffiti on a target of MC under the imagined condition (MCGT1) and the recall condition (MCGT2). We then examined the correlations between the MCGTs, MCT, and MCBS to assess whether graffiti behavior, with respect to the target and condition, effectively reflects an individual's level of MC, and whether the type of condition influences the graffiti results.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-5">PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE</hd> <p>We examined the correlation between the tests by calculating Pearson's product–moment correlation coefficient. A prior power analysis conducted using G*Power 3.1 software indicated that a sample size of 84 participants was sufficient to achieve reliable results (1‐<emph>β</emph> = 0.80, <emph>α</emph> = 0.05). Recruitment ads were posted on the campus social platforms of two universities in China, resulting in a total of 113 sign‐ups. After excluding two participants with professional painting experience, the final sample consisted of 111 valid participants (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 20.96, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.31). The sample included 30 junior college students, 46 undergraduates, and 35 master's students. Of the participants, 38 were male (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 21.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.16) and 73 were female (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 20.64, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.34). Demographic details are summarized in Table 1.</p> <p>1 Table Basic Information of Participants in Study 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Percentage</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic><sub>age</sub></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Sex</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="left">38</td><td align="center">34.20%</td><td align="char" char=".">21.58</td><td align="char" char=".">2.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="left">73</td><td align="center">65.80%</td><td align="char" char=".">20.64</td><td align="char" char=".">2.34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degree</td><td align="left">Junior college</td><td align="left">30</td><td align="center">27%</td><td align="char" char=".">19.27</td><td align="char" char=".">1.34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undergraduate</td><td align="left">46</td><td align="center">41.40%</td><td align="char" char=".">20.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Master</td><td align="left">35</td><td align="center">31.50%</td><td align="char" char=".">23.60</td><td align="char" char=".">1.33</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants completed a series of tasks in the following order: MCGT1, MCGT2, MCT, and MCBS, before providing demographic information (including age, gender, academic degree, and whether they had professional graffiti skills). The entire procedure took approximately 25 minutes. Participants were compensated with 5 RMB at the conclusion of the study.</p> <p>Before participating, all participants signed an "Informed Consent Form," which outlined the study's objectives, the confidentiality agreement, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study was approved by the local ethics review committee.</p> <p>Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 27 software. The correlations between the MCGTs, MCT, and MCBS were calculated to assess the validity of the MCGT measurements under both imagined and recall conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-6">MATERIALS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187843387-7">Malevolent creativity graffiti test (MCGT)</hd> <p>Based on the previous discussion, we designed two tests: MCGT1 and MCGT2.</p> <p>In MCGT1, participants first read a story about experiencing unfair treatment, after which they were instructed to graffiti a portrait of an Asian male (as shown in Figure 1). The graffiti phase lasted 7 minutes, using a 0.5 mm black marker. The story provided to the participants was as follows:</p> <p>Imagine you are working a part‐time job, distributing flyers. Your boss drives you and a colleague, whom you don't know, to the same intersection and hands each of you a stack of flyers. However, the boss gives you significantly more flyers than your colleague! Just as you try to explain the situation, the boss urges both of you to work quickly and drives off. While distributing the flyers, you carefully give them to passers‐by, since the boss has stated that throwing away flyers will result in no wages. After handing out a few flyers, your colleague throws all his remaining flyers into a distant trash can. Yet, when it's time to settle wages, the boss pays your colleague the full amount but unfairly deducts 50 RMB from your pay! You return home, tired and angry, and suddenly notice a sketch of the boss on the part‐time job advertisement on the table.</p> <p>The purpose of this imagined story was to provoke feelings of resentment in participants by presenting an unfair scenario (Seip, Van Dijk, & Rotteveel, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]), while also providing a target for their malicious graffiti behavior (i.e., the boss in the story). As such, MCGT1 involved participants creating graffiti directed at a target of malevolent intent, under an imagined condition.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01sep25/jocb1523-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1523-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The Graffiti Material of MCGT1." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In MCGT2, participants were given a simple drawing of a human figure (as shown in Figure 2) and instructed to imagine that the figure represented the person they disliked the most in real life. They were then asked to freely graffiti the figure. The graffiti phase lasted 7 minutes, using a 0.5 mm black marker. Participants were also required to indicate the original gender of the figure in the lower right corner of the drawing to help raters more accurately assess the malevolent nature of their graffiti.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01sep25/jocb1523-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1523-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The Graffiti Material of MCGT2." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Direct social interaction plays a key role in how we form impressions of others (Traast, Schultner, Doosje, & Amodio, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref77">54</reflink>]), and these impressions are often linked to specific events. Therefore, when participants were asked to recall the person they disliked the most, it likely triggered memories of negative experiences associated with that person. These memories may have included instances where the person treated the participant unfairly or violated their trust. Based on this, we argue that MCGT2 involved participants engaging in graffiti targeting malevolent intentions within a recall condition.</p> <p>Three independent raters assessed the graffiti works on three dimensions: originality (e.g., novelty, uniqueness, and creativity), malevolence (e.g., aggression, caricature, disparagement, and satire directed at the target), and extent (e.g., the number of strokes, content, and quantity of additions to the graffiti). Each dimension was rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (completely). Prior to scoring, the raters received a brief explanation of the concepts underlying the MCGT scoring dimensions. The selection of these dimensions was based on previous research. Originality and malevolence were adapted from the work of Harris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref78">23</reflink>]), while the dimension of extent was derived from Norlander et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref79">41</reflink>]) Experimental Graffiti Test. Notably, in their study, Norlander et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref80">41</reflink>]) used a 0–10 scale for scoring, but in this study, we adopted a 1–10 scale to avoid the use of a median score (i.e., 6). Since MC requires both originality and malevolence, referring to the research of Zhou and Oldham ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref81">60</reflink>]) (they thought creativity should be both original and useful, so they formed a single index by multiplying scores on these dimensions), we multiplied scores on originality and malevolence to determine the final MC score of graffiti works. The Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficients for MCGT1 and MCGT2 were 0.86 and 0.81 respectively, indicating good reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-10">Malevolent creativity test (MCT)</hd> <p>For the MCT, we adopted the imagined scenario used by Gong, Peng, Wang, and Liu ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]), which is as follows:</p> <p>You are a waiter (or waitress) at a restaurant, serving a table of guests. One guest asks you to change the cutlery, and in the process, you accidentally knock over a glass, spilling red wine on the guest's clothes. You apologize immediately, but the guest still scolds you angrily, believing the spill was intentional. The guest calls the manager over and demands that you compensate for the damaged clothes. You are sure the stain can be washed out and does not require compensation, but to keep your job, you are forced to agree. A few days later, you see the guest dining at the restaurant again, apparently unaware of your presence. If you want to teach the guest a lesson without others noticing, what could you do? The more ideas, and the more original, the better. (You have 5 minutes)</p> <p>In Gong et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref83">17</reflink>]) study, this scenario was found to be effective in eliciting malevolent thoughts and was considered appropriate for the context. The scoring system and procedure for the MCT followed the methods used by Gong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]) and Harris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>]). During scoring, three raters first reviewed all participant responses, selecting one that demonstrated the highest levels of both malevolence and originality as a reference. They then scored the remaining responses on malevolence and originality, using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Responses that received scores of 3 or higher on both dimensions were classified as "MC answers." The total number of "MC answers" for each participant was used to calculate the MCT score. The reliability of the MCT was good, with a Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficient of 0.82 in Study 1.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-11">Malevolent creativity behavior scale (MCBS)</hd> <p>The MCBS, developed by Hao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref86">21</reflink>]), is a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = few times, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = usually) consisting of 13 items across three dimensions: hurting people, lying, and playing tricks. For analysis, we used the average scores from the overall scale as well as from each dimension to provide a more intuitive measure of participants' malevolent creativity (MC) levels. The MCBS demonstrated good reliability in Study 1, with a Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficient of 0.83.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-12">RESULTS</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics of each test are shown in Table 2:</p> <p>2 Table Descriptive Statistics of Study 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">MCGT1</th><th align="center">MCGT2</th><th align="center">MCT</th><th align="center">MCBS</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Originality</th><th align="center">Malevolence</th><th align="center">extent</th><th align="center">Originality×malevolence</th><th align="center">Originality</th><th align="center">Malevolence</th><th align="center">extent</th><th align="center">Originality×malevolence</th><th align="center">overall</th><th align="center">Playing tricks</th><th align="center">lying</th><th align="center">Hurting people</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="char" char=".">5.34</td><td align="char" char=".">5.24</td><td align="char" char=".">4.88</td><td align="char" char=".">30.15</td><td align="char" char=".">5.10</td><td align="char" char=".">4.74</td><td align="char" char=".">4.84</td><td align="char" char=".">26.49</td><td align="char" char=".">1.81</td><td align="char" char=".">2.23</td><td align="char" char=".">2.21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.69</td><td align="char" char=".">1.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="char" char=".">1.80</td><td align="char" char=".">2.06</td><td align="char" char=".">1.78</td><td align="char" char=".">18.89</td><td align="char" char=".">1.75</td><td align="char" char=".">1.99</td><td align="char" char=".">1.68</td><td align="char" char=".">17.90</td><td align="char" char=".">1.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We calculated the Pearson product–moment correlations for MCGT1, MCGT2, MCT, and MCBS. The results showed that the originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.265, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005), malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.228, <emph>p</emph> = 0.016), the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.343, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.254, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007) of MCGT1 were all significantly positively correlated with MCT. The originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.189, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047) and the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.256, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007) of MCGT2 were significantly positively correlated with MCT, but malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.089, <emph>p</emph> = 0.354) and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.156, <emph>p</emph> = 0.102) were not significantly correlated with MCT. MCBS was not significantly correlated with either MCGT1 or MCGT2 across all dimensions. In this study, graffiti with a target of MC under the imagined condition (MCGT1) was significantly correlated with MCT, while the correlation with MCBS was not significant; graffiti with a target of MC under the recall condition (MCGT2) was not significantly correlated with either MCT or MCBS.</p> <p>Pearson product–moment correlation results are shown in Table 3.</p> <p>3 Table Pearson Product–Moment Correlation Results of Study 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">1.</th><th align="center">2.</th><th align="center">3.</th><th align="center">4.</th><th align="center">5.</th><th align="center">6.</th><th align="center">7.</th><th align="center">8.</th><th align="center">9.</th><th align="center">10.</th><th align="center">11.</th><th align="center">12.</th><th align="center">13.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">MCGT1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Originality</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.589***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Extent</td><td align="char" char=".">0.795***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.478***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Originality × malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.849***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.897***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.675***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">MCGT2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Originality</td><td align="char" char=".">0.482***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.349***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.552***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.448***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.211*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.372***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.250**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.339***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.667***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Extent</td><td align="char" char=".">0.493***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.222*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.637***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.384***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.715***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.380***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Originality × malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.375***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.412***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.405***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.448***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.875***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.919***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.570***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. MCT</td><td align="char" char=".">0.265**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.228*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.343***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.254**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.189*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.089</td><td align="char" char=".">0.256**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.156</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Overall</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.014</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.010</td><td align="char" char=".">0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.011</td><td align="char" char=".">0.047</td><td align="char" char=".">0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">0.029</td><td align="char" char=".">0.205*</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Playing tricks</td><td align="char" char=".">0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">0.042</td><td align="char" char=".">0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">0.059</td><td align="char" char=".">0.082</td><td align="char" char=".">0.073</td><td align="char" char=".">0.107</td><td align="char" char=".">0.079</td><td align="char" char=".">0.157</td><td align="char" char=".">0.797***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Lying</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.043</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.047</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.009</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.044</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.018</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.034</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.017</td><td align="char" char=".">0.217*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.871***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.597***</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13. Hurting people</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.013</td><td align="char" char=".">0.004</td><td align="char" char=".">0.018</td><td align="char" char=".">0.042</td><td align="char" char=".">0.023</td><td align="char" char=".">0.030</td><td align="char" char=".">0.159</td><td align="char" char=".">0.908***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.604***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.651***</td><td align="left">‐</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p>To further test the reliability of these results, we recalculated the Pearson product–moment correlations with gender, age, and degree controlled. The findings indicated significant positive correlations for MCGT1 in terms of originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.263, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006) and malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.233, <emph>p</emph> = 0.015), the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.343, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) with MCT. MCGT2 showed significant positive correlations for originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.2, <emph>p</emph> = 0.038) and the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.257, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007) with MCT, and a marginally significant originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.17, <emph>p</emph> = 0.079), while malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.105, <emph>p</emph> = 0.28) was not significantly correlated with MCT. Neither MCGT1 nor MCGT2 showed significant correlations with any dimension of MCBS. The results of the two Pearson product–moment correlation analyses were largely consistent. After controlling for demographic variables, MCGT2 showed stronger correlations across more dimensions. However, the overall pattern of results remained stable, with MCGT1 demonstrating better validity than MCGT2.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-13">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Study 1 revealed a significant positive correlation between MCGT1 and MCT, but no significant correlation with MCBS. Specifically, the correlations between MCGT1 and MCT were significant across all dimensions, whereas no dimensions of MCGT1 were significantly correlated with MCBS. This discrepancy may arise from differences in the measurement methods. Both MCGT1 and MCT involve a specific condition and a target of MC, whereas MCBS, as a self‐report scale, does not involve a specific context or MC target. Therefore, the correlation between MCBS and MCGT, which involves a targeted MC condition, is less pronounced than the correlation between MCT and this type of MCGT. Nonetheless, the significant correlation between MCGT1 and MCT is sufficient to demonstrate that graffiti under an imagined condition with a target of MC can reflect an individual's level of MC to some extent.</p> <p>MCGT2 did not show significant correlations with either MCT or MCBS. Several factors may account for this. First, the recall task in MCGT2 may occupy cognitive resources and working memory (Caplan & Waters, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]), leading participants to focus more on the recall process than on the graffiti task itself, which could hinder the generation of MC ideas (Pashler, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]). Second, the social desirability effect may suppress the expression of MC ideas (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref89">21</reflink>]), with participants potentially concealing their malevolent thoughts in the graffiti task due to concerns about how their actions may be perceived. Third, mismatches between the recalled individual and the figure in the graffiti material—such as differences in body contours or personal style—might prevent participants from associating the recalled person with the figure. Additionally, some participants reported not having a person they disliked the most, which may have further affected the validity of MCGT2 measurements.</p> <p>Based on the results and limitations of Study 1, we conducted Study 2, which involved a single‐blind experimental design to further explore the validity of MCGT under real‐world conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-14">STUDY 2: VALIDITY OF MCGT UNDER REAL CONDITIONS</hd> <p>In Study 2, we created competitive and provocative conditions in the laboratory by designing two graffiti tests: MCGT3 and MCGT4. The cover story presented the task as a graffiti competition, where participants competed against a remote opponent in two rounds. Participants could win a round only if their graffiti was more original and creative than the opponent's.</p> <p>In MCGT3, participants were asked to freely graffiti a human figure drawing (shown in Figure 3) under competitive conditions. This task involved a specific condition but did not include a target of MC. Compared to MCGT2 in Study 1, participants in MCGT3 were not required to engage in any recall tasks, thus avoiding the interference of recall demands on the graffiti activity. According to the AMORAL model of MC (Kapoor & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref90">25</reflink>]), the competitive condition may provide sufficient motivation and justification for participants' MC behaviors. Graffiti without a target of MC could reduce participants' moral concerns, allowing them to express their true level of MC.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01sep25/jocb1523-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1523-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 The Graffiti Material of MCGT3." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In MCGT4, participants first received a verbal provocation from their opponent before graffitiing a portrait of the opponent (shown in Figure 4). This task involved both a specific condition and a target of MC. The verbal provocation was as follows:</p> <p>I didn't know you before, but judging from this painting, you don't seem to be a smart person. To be honest, your painting is too ordinary and lacks creativity. You might think you've done well, but in fact, anyone could have thought of what you've painted. Besides lacking creativity, I also think your painting is somewhat ugly. I'm not sure if you're always this careless, or if you're just limb‐uncoordinated. Aesthetically speaking, your painting is indeed a bit ugly. This competition is about who is more innovative—who can paint something more novel—and from what I've seen of your practice, you're not going to beat me. That's my assessment of you. (The provocation lasted 52 seconds)</p> <p>By comparing MCGT4 to MCGT3, we could examine whether the presence of a target of MC affects the measurement outcomes. Furthermore, comparing MCGT4 (Study 2) to MCGT1 (Study 1) allows us to explore how the type of condition—shifting from an imagined story to a real‐world situation—affects graffiti behavior. It is important to note that Study 1 already demonstrated the association between MCGT and MCT. Therefore, Study 2 focused more on the relationship between graffiti behavior and the MCBS. To avoid participant fatigue and in line with this focus, we omitted MCT and only administered MCBS in Study 2.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01sep25/jocb1523-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1523-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 The Graffiti Material of MCGT4." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187843387-17">PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE</hd> <p>Following the power analysis conducted in Study 1, we recruited participants through campus social platforms at two universities in China. A total of 132 individuals signed up. After excluding 1 participant who guessed the purpose of the experiment, 1 who was uncooperative, and 4 with professional drawing skills, the final valid sample consisted of 126 participants (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 18.98, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.32). The sample included 3 undergraduates and 123 junior college students, with 48 males (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 19.17, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.98) and 78 females (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 18.87, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.49). Basic demographic information is summarized in Table 4.</p> <p>4 Table Basic Information of Participants in Study 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">percentage</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic><sub>age</sub></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Sex</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="left">48</td><td align="char" char=".">38.1%</td><td align="char" char=".">19.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="left">78</td><td align="char" char=".">61.9%</td><td align="char" char=".">18.87</td><td align="char" char=".">1.49</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degree</td><td align="left">Junior college</td><td align="left">123</td><td align="char" char=".">97.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">18.96</td><td align="char" char=".">1.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undergraduate</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="char" char=".">2.4%</td><td align="char" char=".">20.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This study was single‐blind, meaning that participants were unaware of the true purpose of the research. Participants first completed MCGT3 (3 minutes), followed by a verbal provocation from the opponent. They then completed MCGT4 (7 minutes). Afterward, participants provided demographic information (gender, age, degree, and whether they had professional drawing skills) and filled out the MCBS. At the conclusion of the study, the experimenter debriefed the participants, explained the study's purpose, and provided each participant with 15 RMB as compensation.</p> <p>Before the study began, participants signed an "Informed Consent Form," in which they were informed about the study's content, confidentiality protocols, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time. The study was approved by the local ethics review committee.</p> <p>Four raters independently scored the graffiti works from MCGT3 and MCGT4. The scoring criteria and procedures were consistent with those used in Study 1. The Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficients for MCGT3 and MCGT4 were 0.843 and 0.898, respectively, indicating good internal reliability.</p> <p>Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27 software. Pearson correlation coefficients between the MCGTs and MCBS were calculated to assess the effectiveness of the MCGT in measuring malevolent creativity under real‐world conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-18">MATERIALS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187843387-19">The malevolent creativity graffiti test (MCGT)</hd> <p>Participants completed two MCGTs in this study. In the first test (MCGT3), they were asked to graffiti on a provided material (Figure 3) for 3 minutes. In the second test (MCGT4), participants first received a verbal provocation from their opponent, then graffitied on the opponent's portrait for 7 minutes. In both tests, participants were instructed to create graffiti that was more creative than their opponent's in order to win the round. A 0.5 mm black marker was used as the graffiti tool.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-20">The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS)</hd> <p>As in Study 1, the Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficient for the MCBS in Study 2 was 0.849, indicating good reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-21">RESULTS</hd> <p>Pearson product–moment correlations were calculated between the graffiti works of MCGT3, MCGT4, and MCBS. The results showed significant positive correlations between MCBS and MCGT3 in terms of originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.250, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005), malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.254, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004), the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.215, <emph>p</emph> = 0.016), and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.275, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002). MCBS showed significant positive correlations with MCGT4 in terms of malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.298, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.235, <emph>p</emph> = 0.008), a marginally significant positive correlation with originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.171, <emph>p</emph> = 0.056), and nonsignificant correlations with the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.113, <emph>p</emph> = 0.207). This indicates that both MCGT3 and MCGT4 are correlated with MCBS to some extent, particularly in the dimensions closely related to the concept of MC: originality, malevolence, and originality × malevolence.</p> <p>Pearson product–moment correlation results are presented in Table 5.</p> <p>5 Table Pearson Product–Moment Correlation Results of Study 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">1.</th><th align="center">2.</th><th align="center">3.</th><th align="center">4.</th><th align="center">5.</th><th align="center">6.</th><th align="center">7.</th><th align="center">8.</th><th align="center">9.</th><th align="center">10.</th><th align="center">11.</th><th align="center">12.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">MCGT3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1. originality</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.546**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. extent</td><td align="char" char=".">0.737**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.171</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. originality × malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.837**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.879**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.462**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">MCGT4</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. originality</td><td align="char" char=".">0.220*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.150</td><td align="char" char=".">0.256**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.184*</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.254**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.220*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.276**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.256**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.736**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. extent</td><td align="char" char=".">0.239**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.148</td><td align="char" char=".">0.287**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.197*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.863**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.557**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. originality × malevolence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.237**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.223*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.235**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.245**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.897**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.916**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.736**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">MCBS</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. overall</td><td align="char" char=".">0.250**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.254**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.215*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.275**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.171</td><td align="char" char=".">0.298**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.113</td><td align="char" char=".">0.235**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. playing tricks</td><td align="char" char=".">0.185*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.166</td><td align="char" char=".">0.202*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.172</td><td align="char" char=".">0.128</td><td align="char" char=".">0.186*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.068</td><td align="char" char=".">0.150</td><td align="char" char=".">0.797**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. lying</td><td align="char" char=".">0.246**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.227*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.251**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.241**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.127</td><td align="char" char=".">0.228*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.110</td><td align="char" char=".">0.183*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.806**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.550**</td><td align="char" char=".">‐</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12. hurting people</td><td align="char" char=".">0.190*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.224*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.107</td><td align="char" char=".">0.251**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.160</td><td align="char" char=".">0.298**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.097</td><td align="char" char=".">0.230**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.863**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.539**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.481**</td><td align="left">‐</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p>The same as in Study 1, we recalculated the Pearson product–moment correlations for each test after controlling for gender, age, and degree. The results showed significant positive correlations between MCBS and MCGT3 in terms of originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.217, <emph>p</emph> = 0.016), malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.252, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005), the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.186, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04), and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.255, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004). MCBS showed significant positive correlations with MCGT4 in terms of malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.309, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and originality × malevolence (<emph>r</emph> = 0.245, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006), a marginally significant positive correlation with originality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.170, <emph>p</emph> = 0.060), and nonsignificant correlations with the extent of graffiti (<emph>r</emph> = 0.101, <emph>p</emph> = 0.268). After controlling for gender, age, and degree, the correlation between MCBS and MCGT3 graffiti slightly decreased, while the correlation between MCBS and MCGT4 graffiti slightly increased. However, the overall results remained stable.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Both MCGT3 and MCGT4 showed significant positive correlations with MCBS, particularly in dimensions closely related to the concept of MC: originality, malevolence, and originality × malevolence. This suggests that graffiti behavior in real conditions can reflect an individual's level of MC to a certain extent, regardless of whether a specific target of MC is present.</p> <p>When comparing the two graffiti tests in Study 2, MCGT3 showed a significant positive correlation with the total MCBS score in terms of originality (<emph>p</emph> = 0.005), whereas MCGT4 showed only a marginally significant positive correlation (<emph>p</emph> = 0.056). We hypothesize two potential reasons for this difference.</p> <p>First, the provocative condition in MCGT4 may have influenced the results. Provocative situations are known to significantly increase an individual's anger (Allen & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>]) and aggression (Anderson & Huesmann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]). In daily life, MC is often used as a form of retaliation in response to provocation (Perchtold‐Stefan, Rominger, Papousek & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]). A strong malevolent mood may drive graffiti behavior toward destruction rather than creativity (Nordmarker, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref94">37</reflink>]). Therefore, the provocative condition in MCGT4 could have inhibited creativity, as it triggered a more malevolent mood.</p> <p>Second, the graffiti material in MCGT4 provided a specific target for attack—the opponent's portrait. As participants were required to graffiti this portrait, their motivation to "win" the competition may have been coupled with a strong desire for revenge. In this context, participants may have viewed graffiti as a means to respond to the provocation and vent anger. While MCGT4 may have encouraged more aggressive and destructive graffiti behavior, participants still demonstrated a certain level of creativity in the process. Consequently, the correlation between MCBS and MCGT4 in terms of originality × malevolence remained marginally significant.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-23">GENERAL DISCUSSION</hd> <p>We examined the validity of the Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test (MCGT) in two studies. In Study 1, graffiti with the target of MC under an imagined condition (MCGT1) was significantly positively correlated with MCT (Malevolent Creativity Test). In Study 2, both MCGT3 and MCGT4—graffiti with and without the target of MC under real conditions—were significantly positively correlated with MCBS. These results suggest that individuals who score higher on MCT and MCBS tend to produce graffiti works with greater originality and malevolence, and this correlation persists even after controlling for variables like gender, age, and educational degree. This provides preliminary evidence that the MCGT can reflect an individual's level of MC to a certain extent and that graffiti behavior has the potential to serve as an indicator of MC. This finding is significant for advancing research on MC. As a new method of measuring MC, the MCGT's main advantage lies in its ability to capture the specific manifestation of MC behaviors (i.e., graffiti behavior), which addresses some of the limitations of existing MC measurement methods and offers new possibilities for research in this area.</p> <p>Several important findings from this study warrant further discussion. First, we examined the relationship between the MCGT and MCBS across the two studies. In Study 1, the two MCGTs were not significantly correlated with MCBS, whereas in Study 2, both MCGTs showed significant correlations. Although MCBS measures MC based on past behaviors, these behaviors often stem from individuals' problem‐solving actions in real‐life situations, reflecting relatively stable behavioral tendencies. The stable level of MC in an individual should be reflected in related MC activities. Therefore, a graffiti test conducted under specific conditions should, in theory, correlate with MCBS, although this correlation may be influenced by extraneous factors.</p> <p>The most significant difference between Study 1 and Study 2 lies in whether participants truly experienced the experimental conditions. Previous research suggests that real‐life situations can effectively provoke anger and hostile cognition in participants (Kapoor & Mange, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref95">26</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger, & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref96">43</reflink>]). Furthermore, individuals are unlikely to express their authentic MC ideas unless they experience sufficient emotional and cognitive arousal (Nguyen et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref97">36</reflink>]). The real‐life conditions in Study 2 likely provided a more direct means of eliciting emotions, cognition, and arousal compared to the imagined conditions in Study 1. The higher level of participant involvement and the competitive nature of the tasks in Study 2 likely promoted MC behavior (Kapoor & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref98">25</reflink>]), making participants' graffiti behavior more aligned with real‐life MC. This alignment enabled the observed correlation between the MCGT under specific conditions and MCBS.</p> <p>Second, a comparison of the results between the two studies shows that graffiti under imagined (MCGT1), competitive (MCGT3), and provocative (MCGT4) conditions were all significantly correlated with existing methods of measuring MC, even when MCGT3 did not involve a specific target for MC. This demonstrates the MCGT's ability to capture individuals' levels of MC across a range of negative‐oriented situations, indicating the test's stability. However, MCGT2, which involved a recall task, showed no significant correlation with either MCT or MCBS. We infer that this result may be due to the interference of the recall task on cognition and emotion, as well as the potential inhibition of malevolent graffiti behavior due to concerns about social approval.</p> <p>Despite these promising results, several limitations should be considered. First, the study did not examine the validity of the MCGT without a specific condition. We argue that MC graffiti is most meaningful when tied to specific conditions. Direct social interactions are crucial for forming impressions about others (Traast et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref99">54</reflink>]), and malevolence often arises in response to specific situations. Negative conditions can effectively enhance an individual's aggression and MC (Gummerum et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref100">19</reflink>]; Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref101">44</reflink>]). Without a clear condition or target for MC, participants may engage in non‐malicious graffiti due to a lack of clear direction or target, potentially leading to inaccurate scores. Furthermore, because MC inherently involves violations of social norms (Cropley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref102">11</reflink>]), individuals may be less likely to express malevolent ideas creatively without the right situational trigger (Hao et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref103">21</reflink>]). Therefore, we conclude that graffiti behavior without a specific condition may not effectively reflect a participant's true level of MC. However, this is a theoretical speculation, and future research could explore the relationship between such unconditioned graffiti behavior and MC.</p> <p>Second, Study 2 did not explore the relationship between real‐condition graffiti (MCGT3 and MCGT4) and MCT. Future research could supplement the correlation data between the MCGT and MCT to clarify the association between these two measurement methods. Additionally, examining the correlation between the MCGT and other MC‐related tools (e.g., the divergent thinking task) could provide further validity and reliability evidence for this paradigm.</p> <p>Third, it is important to note that graffiti behavior is a form of creativity in the field of art, and this may differ from creativity in other domains, such as scriptwriting, science, or design (Glaveanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref104">14</reflink>]). The MC displayed through graffiti in the MCGT may be specific to the field of art and may not align with MC behavior in other domains. Future studies should investigate the relationship between MCGT results and other subfields of MC. Moreover, while we suggest that MC can be expressed through graffiti when triggered by appropriate situational factors in a laboratory setting, we do not equate all graffiti as malevolent, nor do we assume that all graffiti artists intend to cause harm. Future research should focus on the indicators of "malevolence" or "originality × malevolence" when using the MCGT, to avoid oversimplifying graffiti as purely a manifestation of MC.</p> <p>Fourth, the gender of the target in MCGT1 and MCGT4 was male, but the influence of the target's gender on graffiti behavior was not explored. Future research could manipulate the gender or other characteristics (e.g., attractiveness, professional attire) of the target to examine how these factors influence participants' graffiti behavior.</p> <p>Fifth, the participants in this study were all college students, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Participants with different educational backgrounds or knowledge reserves may exhibit different levels of MC. Future research should test the validity and reliability of the MCGT with a more diverse sample to enhance the representativeness of the findings.</p> <p>In addition to addressing the limitations mentioned above, the MCGT offers an exciting avenue for exploring the internal processes of MC. By allowing participants to fully engage in MC behavior within a controlled laboratory environment, the MCGT aligns with the four‐stage theory of creativity (Wallas, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref105">56</reflink>]), in which individuals go through preparation, incubation, inspiration, and verification stages to produce a final MC product (the graffiti). Researchers could use the MCGT paradigm to explore the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underlying MC behavior.</p> <p>Finally, future research could adapt and refine the MCGT for various contexts. For example, other specific graffiti conditions, such as social exclusion (Perchtold‐Stefan, Fink, Rominger & Papousek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref106">44</reflink>]), could be introduced. Researchers could also introduce new tools (e.g., colored pens) to enrich the expression of MC or develop online platforms for MCGT administration. Moreover, given that different scoring systems can influence measurement outcomes (Lange et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref107">28</reflink>]), future studies should examine the relationship between MCGT and other MC measurement tools using various scoring approaches. Additionally, further research could explore the effects of time pressure in MCGT3 (a three‐minute time limit) on malevolent behavior, to better understand the implications of time constraints in assessing MC.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-24">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The corresponding author would also like to specially thank Mr. Hidetaka Miyazaki, the game producer, and his Souls‐like games for providing inspiration for the research on malevolent creativity conducted by the author.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-25">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>We declare there are no conflict of interest in this work.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-26">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This research was supported by Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2024NSFSC2099).</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-27">ETHICS INFORMATION</hd> <p>All procedures involving human participants in this study were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical commission at Sichuan Normal University, College of Psychology.</p> <hd id="AN0187843387-28">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0187843387-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref40" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, J.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2017). General Aggression Model. In P. Rössler, C.A. Hoffner, & L. Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1 – 15). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Al‐Mahdawi, A.M., Dutton, E., Osman, H.A.M., Bakhiet, S.F., Mohammad, N.A., Khair, S., & Madison, G. (2022). Sex differences in malevolent creativity among Sudanese students. Personality and Individual Differences, 196, 111724.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref56" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., & Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 367 – 403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref92" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, C.A., & Huesmann, L.R. (2007). Human aggression: a social‐cognitive view. In The SAGE handbook of social psychology: Concise (Student edn, pp. 259 – 288). London : SAGE Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baas, M., Roskes, M., Koch, S., Cheng, Y., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2019). Why social threat motivates malevolent creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45 (11), 1590 – 1602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Caplan, D., & Waters, G.S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 77 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A., & Whitwell, G.J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don't walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 139 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref51" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carroll, J.E. (2018). Graffiti, speech, and crime. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 1285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref72" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, M.E., & Arvey, R. (2011). The role of forgivingness and anger in unfair events. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 (5), 700 – 705.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12 (4), 311 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C., & Cropley, A.J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: a functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (2), 105 – 115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu, H., & Zhang, Z. (2022). The inhibitory effect of moral emotions on malevolent creativity: Exploring the mediation role of emotional valence and prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 945848.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geng, Y., Shi, Y., Hu, W., Jin, W., Zhang, Y., & Zhan, T. (2024). Fight injustice with darkness: the effect of early life adversity on malevolent creativity behavior. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 58 (2), 279 – 296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaveanu, V., Lubart, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., Biaisi, P.‐M.D., Desainte‐Catherine, M., ... & Zenasni, F. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 40417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez, M.A. (1992). The writing on our walls: Finding solutions through distinguishing graffiti art from graffiti vandalism. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 26, 633.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong, Z., & Liu, C. (2016). Malevolent creativity: Concept, measurement, influence factors and future research. Journal of Psychological Science, 39 (1), 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong, Z., Peng, Y., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2017). The characteristics of attentional bias and impulsive control in highly malicious creative people. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 613 – 617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gummerum, M., López‐Pérez, B., Van Dijk, E., & Van Dillen, L.F. (2022). Ire and punishment: Incidental anger and costly punishment in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 218, 105376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halsey, M., & Young, A. (2006). 'Our desires are ungovernable': Writing graffiti in urban space. Theoretical Criminology, 10 (3), 275 – 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hao, N., Tang, M., Yang, J., Wang, Q., & Runco, M.A. (2016). A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 682.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, D.J., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2015). Fast and furious: The influence of implicit aggression, premeditation, and provoking situations on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9 (1), 54 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, D.J., Reiter‐Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J.C. (2013). The effect of emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7 (3), 237 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12 (3), 211 – 226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J.C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32 (3), 467 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapoor, H., & Mange, U. (2023). Affective Factors in Dark Creativity. In Z. Ivcevic, J.D. Hoffmann, & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity and emotions (pp. 340 – 357). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korytnyk, N.X., & Perkins, D.V. (1983). Effects of alcohol versus expectancy for alcohol on the incidence of graffiti following an experimental task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92 (3), 382 – 385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange, T., Kopkow, C., Lützner, J., Günther, K.‐P., Gravius, S., Scharf, H.‐P., ... & Schmitt, J. (2020). Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: Different scales lead to different consensus and show different test‐retest reliability. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20 (1), 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S.A., & Dow, G.T. (2011). Malevolent creativity: Does personality influence Malicious Divergent Thinking? Creativity Research Journal, 23 (2), 73 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malik, O.F., Shahzad, A., Waheed, A., & Yousaf, Z. (2020). Abusive supervision as a trigger of malevolent creativity: Do the Light Triad traits matter? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 41 (8), 1119 – 1137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslow, A.H. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance (1st edn). New York, NY : Harper and Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAuliffe, C., & Iveson, K. (2011). Art and crime (and other things besides...): Conceptualising graffiti in the city. Geography Compass, 5 (3), 128 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischkowski, D., Kross, E., & Bushman, B.J. (2012). Flies on the wall are less aggressive: Self‐distancing "in the heat of the moment" reduces aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (5), 1187 – 1191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, K.S., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2023). Malevolent creativity: Personality, process, and the larger creativity field. In Creativity and morality (pp. 47 – 68). Amsterdam, Netherlands : Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mršević, Z. (2012). Street Graffiti–Between Amnesty of Our Children and Moral Panicking. Bezbednost, Beograd, 54 (2), 7 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, T.L., Walters, K.N., d'Amato, A.L., Miller, S.R., & Hunter, S.T. (2022). Target personification influences the positive emotional link between generating and implementing malevolently creative ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 36, 45 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordmarker, A. (2016). Graffiti–for joy and confirmation. Motivational aspects, triggering and inhibiting factors, and emotional satisfactions in graffiti: The creative‐interactive dimension of vandalism. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation) University of Gothenburg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordmarker, A., Hjärthag, F., Perrin‐Wallqvist, R., & Archer, T. (2016). The roles of gender and personality factors in vandalism and scrawl‐graffiti among Swedish adolescents. PsyCh Journal, 5 (3), 180 – 190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordmarker, A., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2000). The effects of alcohol intake and induced frustration upon art vandalism. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 28 (1), 15 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Psychological androgyny and creativity: Dynamics of gender‐role and personality trait. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 28 (5), 423 – 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norlander, T., Nordmarker, A., & Archer, T. (1998). Effects of alcohol and frustration on experimental graffiti. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39 (4), 201 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pashler, H. (1994). Dual‐task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (2), 220 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Fink, A., Rominger, C., & Papousek, I. (2021). Creative, antagonistic, and angry? Exploring the roots of malevolent creativity with a real‐world idea generation task. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55 (3), 710 – 722.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Fink, A., Rominger, C., & Papousek, I. (2024). Social exclusion increases antisocial tendencies: Evidence from retaliatory ideation in a malevolent creativity task. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 18 (6), 1014 – 1025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Fink, A., Rominger, C., Szabo, E., & Papousek, I. (2022). Enjoying others' distress and indifferent to threat? Changes in prefrontal‐posterior coupling during social‐emotional processing are linked to malevolent creativity. Brain and Cognition, 163, 105913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Papousek, C.R.I., & Fink, A. (2023). Functional EEG alpha activation patterns during malevolent creativity. Neuroscience, 522, 98 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Rominger, C., & Fink, A. (2023). Depressive symptoms are positively linked to malevolent creativity: A novel perspective on the maladaptive nature of revenge ideation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 57 (2), 319 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perchtold‐Stefan, C.M., Rominger, C., Papousek, I., & Fink, A. (2023). Women and men have a similar potential for malevolent creativity‐But their underlying brain mechanisms are different. Brain Research, 1801, 148201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, D., & Eslea, M. (2005). Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of current laboratory aggression paradigms. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 31 (5), 407 – 419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M.A., Plucker, J.A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 393 – 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seip, E.C., Van Dijk, W.W., & Rotteveel, M. (2014). Anger motivates costly punishment of unfair behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 578 – 588.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi, Z., Zhou, Z., Tian, L., Zhu, Y., Liu, C., & Xu, L. (2023). What causes malevolent creative people to engage in malevolent behaviors? Mediating role of moral disengagement and moderating effects of conscience. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, D., Shi, Y., Gu, X., & Lu, P. (2024). Bullying victimization and malevolent creativity in rural adolescents: The longitudinal mediational role of hostile attribution. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 27 (6), 420 – 425.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traast, I.J., Schultner, D.T., Doosje, B., & Amodio, D.M. (2024). Race effects on impression formation in social interaction: An instrumental learning account. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 153 (12), 2985 – 3001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waldie, C.W., Gillespie, V.J., Coleman, C.L., Cropley, D.H., Oppert, M.L., & Webb, S.N. (2021). An exploration of the validity of the malevolent creativity behavior scale (MCBS). PsyArXiv.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London, UK : Jonathan Cape.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watts, G., & Higham, A. (2021). If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will treat everything as a nail: exploring why construction contractors monetise social value. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 18 (3), 10 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, R. (2001). Graffiti, crime prevention & cultural space. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 12 (3), 253 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, L., Qiao, X., & Hao, N. (2024). Intergroup threat stimulates malevolent creative idea generation. Motivation and Emotion, 48 (4), 531 – 548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35 (3), 151 – 167.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ruiyi Tang; Qiangang Li and Zhe Gong</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483088
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test--A New Measurement Method for Malevolent Creative Behavior
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruiyi+Tang%22">Ruiyi Tang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6752-7997">0009-0008-6752-7997</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qiangang+Li%22">Qiangang Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhe+Gong%22">Zhe Gong</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5248-0892">0000-0001-5248-0892</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Expression%22">Art Expression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior%22">Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.1523
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study introduces the malevolent creativity Graffiti test (MCGT), based on the Experimental Graffiti paradigm, as a measure of malevolent creative (MC) behavior. The malevolent creativity test (MCT) and the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) were used in two separate studies to assess the validity of the MCGT. Study 1 examined graffiti with a target of MC under two conditions: an imagined (MCGT1) and a recall (MCGT2) condition, involving 111 valid participants. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between MCGT1 and MCT, but no significant correlation with MCBS. MCGT2 showed no significant correlation with either MCT or MCBS. Study 2 explored graffiti without an MC target in a real competitive context (MCGT3) and graffiti with an MC target in a real provocative context (MCGT4), involving 126 valid participants. Both MCGT3 and MCGT4 demonstrated a significant positive correlation with MCBS. The associations between different types of MCGTs and established MC measures (i.e., MCT and MCBS) suggest that the MCGT holds promise as an effective tool for assessing MC behavior. This development of the MCGT addresses some limitations of current MC measurement methods and opens new avenues for research in malevolent creativity.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483088
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483088
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.1523
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Expression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Malevolent Creativity Graffiti Test--A New Measurement Method for Malevolent Creative Behavior
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruiyi Tang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qiangang Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhe Gong
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1