Research on creativity has yielded competing findings regarding whether it is beneficial or detrimental to individuals’ mental health outcomes. Studies on creativity have found associations with both positive (growth, purpose, and higher well-being) and negative (lower well-being, higher psychopathy) outcomes. This idea raises the question of whether there is a threshold whereby the pursuit of creative behavior becomes detrimental to the individual. Furthermore, what underlying mechanisms might contribute to both higher creativity and worse mental health outcomes? To address this question, personality traits that are commonly linked to creative expression (i.e. risk-taking, novelty seeking, and mind wandering) were examined as moderators in the association between creativity and mental health outcomes. Additionally, a neurodivergent classification was also assessed due to higher-than-average creativity scores seen in those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A cross-sectional study was conducted with 334 participants (160 of which consisted of individuals with ADHD) who completed an anonymous survey with measures of creativity, mental health, and personality traits. Findings and implications are discussed below.

Prosecutors’ use of dehumanizing language to describe defendants in their opening and closing statements can often go unchecked. This research aims to assess the effect of dehumanizing language on judgments about Black versus White defendants.Past research has demonstrated the effects of dehumanizing language on lay people's perceptions of out-groups, and how those perceptions can lead to consequential behaviors, prejudice, and even retributive violence and conflict. My first aim is to extend this research to the legal context, more specifically, to address a gap in prior research by randomly assigning participants to read the same closing statement in a murder case with (a) no dehumanizing language, (b) animalistic dehumanizing language, or (c) mechanistic dehumanizing language to describe either (a) White defendants (Studies 1-2) or (b) Black defendants (Study 2). There has been ample investigation into subtle dehumanization and how it interacts with racial groups, but research has yet to investigate how dehumanized descriptions (both animalistic and mechanistic) of a defendant may influence implicit and explicit perceptions of a defendant and legal outcomes with the inclusion of a race manipulation. I tested the impact of dehumanizing language on participants’ impressions of the defendant, their levels of explicit dehumanization of the defendant specifically and implicit dehumanization of Black versus White targets generally, as well as their ultimate sentencing decisions. I predicted that closing statements including dehumanizing language would lead to greater dehumanization of the defendant and greater likelihood of choosing a death sentence—and that this effect would be greater for Black versus White defendants. I also conducted exploratory tests of the relative impact of animalistic versus mechanistic dehumanization. Investigation into the effects of dehumanization of racial and ethnic groups can help identify underlying psychological causes of racial bias and help to facilitate potential preventative measures in the courtroom. In this paper, I will report the results from a preliminary study testing the impact of dehumanizing language about a White defendant. I will then report the results from a follow-up study testing the impact of dehumanizing language about a White and a Black defendant.