Content uploaded by Kuan Chen Tsai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kuan Chen Tsai on Oct 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
15
ISSN 1712-8358[Print]
ISSN 1923-6700[Online]
www.cscanada.net
www.cscanada.org
Cross-Cultural Communication
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2012, pp. 15-20
DOI:10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120802.1360
The Interplay Between Culture and Creativity
L’INTERACTION ENTRE LA CULTURE ET DE LA CREATIVITE
Kuan Chen Tsai1,*
1 Ph.D. Student, University of the Incarnate Word, USA.
Address: 6900 N Vandiver Rd J205, San Antonio, TX 78209, USA.
*Corresponding author.
Received 7 January 2012; accepted 22 April 2012.
Abstract
Creativity per se is a convoluted phenomenon. With
regard to distinct manifestations, the impact of culture
on creativity is discussed. The belief system is embedded
in the creative productions across different cultures. The
exertion of culture on creativity is presented within a
reciprocal process that, alongside culture, also weaves
historical, societal, and individual factors. Further
suggestions for cross-cultural studies of creativity are also
discussed.
Key words: Creativity; Culture; Cross-cultural
studies
Résumé
La créativité en soi est un phénomène compliqué. En
ce qui concerne les manifestations distinctes, l’impact
de la culture sur la créativité est discutée. Le système
de croyance est ancrée dans les productions créatives
à travers différentes cultures. L’effort de la culture sur
la créativité est présentée dans un processus réciproque
qui, aux côtés de la culture, tisse également des facteurs
historiques, sociaux et individuels. D’autres suggestions
pour les études transculturelles de la créativité sont
également discutés.
Mots clés: La créativité; La culture; Les études
transculturelles
Kuan Chen Tsai (2012). The Interplay Between Culture
and Creativity. Cross-Cultural Communication
, 8
(2), 15-20.
Available from URL: http://www.cscanada.net/index.
php/ccc/article/view/j.ccc.1923670020120802.1360
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120802.1360.
INTRODUCTION
The study of creativity is pitfall, since creativity per se
is a convoluted phenomenon. Indeed, universal theory
of creativity does not exist (Craft, 2003; Ludwig, 1992;
Treffinger, 2004). Through a great deal of efforts and
works, creativity researchers now understand some
features of creativity (Treffinger, 2004). A number of
variables are identified to improve or impair creative
performance, which include personality, cognition,
knowledge, brain function, family background,
motivation, environment, and social context (Runco,
2004). Perhaps most of the contribution is that the extent
of ownership of creativity, which not only is limited to a
select few but also laypeople have that property; it exists
within the mundane life and beyond specific domains
(e.g., science, art, and literature) (Lubart & Sternberg,
1998; Simonton, 2000). “We all harbor within us creative
seeds that are capable of fl ourishing” (Edelson, 1999, p.7).
The interest in the research of creativity gained grounds
in North America since 1950 Guilford speech and shed
light on systematic empirical research of creativity. The
merits of Guilford early creativity research not only
provided the foundation of subsequent research on the
nature and assessment of creative thinking, but also
introduced key components of divergent thinking which
includes fluency, feasibility, and originality. Since then
the wave of research becomes an exciting research topic
for creativity researchers to explore different theoretical
or methodological framework and cross-disciplinary
methods (Feldman & Benjamin, 2006; Mumford, 2000;
Simonton, 2000; Torrance, 1977).
The present review specifically focuses on the
profound effects of cultural milieu on creativity. From the
lens of culture, the universality of creativity is distinct,
but the manifestation of creativity is diverse (Craft, 2008;
Simonton & Shing-Shiang, 2010). Different cultures have
different perceptions of creativity. Throughout this review
the conceptions of creativity, especially the similarityand
16
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
The Interplay Between Culture and Creativity
difference between East and West, will be examined.
Here, Chinese perception of creativity will be represented
as the major sample of East. The main reason is that
the Confucianism and Taoism have a great influence on
Asian countries (Cannon, 2010). Different culture values
attached to creativity also manifest on various creativity
outlets. Some concrete examples will be given. Then,
some theories related to social environment on creativity
will be briefl y discussed. Following this line, some cross-
cultural studies will also be presented. Finally, possible
directions and further suggestions concerning the cross-
cultural researches on creativity will be outlined.
DIFFERENT CONCEPTUAL MAPS OF
CREATIVITY BETWEEN EAST AND
WEST
The similarity of concept of creativity across East and
West is both valuing the positive side of creativity and
praising creative individuals. For example, in India, God
Vishvakarna, is worshiped by the spirit and power of the
creative process (Lubart, 1990). It is said that perspectives
of creativity stem from cultural creation myths (Craft,
2008; Lubart, 1990). For instance, the Oriental common
theme of creativity includes development and ongoing
process toward the cosmic creation. In light of Chinese
belief systems, the world was created by the interaction
of yin-yang movement (yin means negative force; yang
means positive force), which in turn differentiates this
world and its being; namely yin-yang is the ultimate
creative source of everything (Niu & Sternberg, 2006).
The phenomenon of yin and yang manifests everywhere;
all events (including creativity) consist of opposites or
polarities (Moeller, 2006). On the other hand, Judaic and
Greek view this phenomenon as unexpected incident by
outsiders to bring the order (Lubart, 1990). Traditionally,
creativity was viewed as the divine force between East and
West (Craft, Gardner, & Claxton, 2008; Niu& Sternberg,
2006). With this view, the human beings cannot create
and only mimic the glory of God or are inspired by the
Muses (Ludwig, 1992; Niu & Sternberg, 2003; Simonton,
2000). In sum, “human do not create; God does” (Niu &
Sternberg, 2006, p.22).
The notion of creativity under the umbrella of the
divine entity was dominant in the history of Western
mindset for a long period of time (Craft et al., 2008).After
Enlightenment, the concept of creativity had shifted from
divine to individual, followed by achievement of science
and technology (Niu & Sternberg, 2006). In Western
view, currently the general consensus of creativity is
defi ned as the individuals (creators), processes (creating),
and products (creations) with the features of usefulness,
appropriateness, and novelty (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006;
Ford, 1996; Hennessey &Amabile, 1988;Taylor, 1988;
Walberg, 1988). The definition of Western creativity is
product-oriented, which focuses on tangible, observable,
and measurable manifestation (Lubart, 1990). This utility-
orientated attribution is a good fi t for the Western process
model of cognitive problem-solving orientation (Lubart&
Sternberg, 1998). Additionally, the popular Torrrance
Tests of Creative Thinking lends support to the important
feature of observable product-oriented definition in the
West (Torrance, 1988).
In contrast, the Eastern conception of creativity
portrays a different picture. The “novelty” is not
a protagonist around the plot of creativity (Niu &
Sternberg, 2006; Rudowicz, 2003). The focus is more
inner development and inner state of fulfilment. It is
the journey of self-discovery and intuitive approach
rather than the manifest of wordily product (Rudowicz,
2003). In doing so individual could achieve a high level
of creativity. This value-based viewpoint also exhibits
on social and moral realm (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998;
Niu & Sternberg, 2003, 2006). For example, in lights
of ancient Chinese perspective, mostly reflected by
Taoism, creativity is not isolated but conceptualized in
a comprehensive universal power within and without
a person. Further, there are two approaches to develop
creativity: mediation (Taoist method) and self-cultivation
(Confucian method) (Niu & Sternberg, 2003; Shi, Qu &
Lin, 2007). In Indian philosophy, the conceptualization
of creativity is embedded in the “state of personal
fulfi llment or bliss”(Lubart, 1990, p.42). In other words,
creativity is viewed as the process of self-actualization or
enlightenment to some extent. The study of Indian artists
(Maduro, 1976; as cited in Lubart, 1990), for example,
further illustrates this contention that the creation journey
in some sense is integrating with self-unconsciousness.
THE EFFECT OF CULTURE ON CREATIVE
PRODUCTION
Cultural features have a catalyzing effect on creative
activity. The outlet of creative expression is defined
differently across cultures (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998;
Ludwig, 1992). Arab culture, for example, encourages
creativity on technology and verbal expression but visual
arts have been strictly prohibited by canons. However,
in India and China, the religious topics and idols are
admired and important genre. In Turkey, creativity is
strongly welcomed in science and technology but not
in traditional social rules and relationships (Rudowicz,
2003). In North America, it is a likelihood of compliment
of the creative expression in science and problem solving
but condemnation of that in politics or socioeconomic
theory (Lubart, 1990). There is a tendency that "the level
of creativity permitted on a topic is inversely related
to the topic's role in the maintenance of deep cultural
patterns"(Lubart, 1990, p.46). Sometimes, those cultural
constraints are more implicit. For example, Chinese
17
Kuan Chen Tsai (2012).
Cross-Cultural Communication, 8
(2), 15-20
novels place more focus on the external behavior, which
is parallel with the emphasis of interpersonal relationship
within Eastern culture, whereas American novels tend to
care about inner states of the characters, which refl ects the
center of individual per se in Western societies (Ludwig,
1992).
THEORIES OF SOCIAL-
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON
CREATIVITY
A battery of creativity researches are anchored to
theoretical frameworks addressing the position of
societies on creativity. Amabile (1996), for example,
proposed intrinsic motivation principle of creativity
from the perspective of social psychology of creativity.
This formulation supported by other colleagues (e.g.,
Hennessey, 1995) states that the primary driving force to
be highly creative is located in the intrinsic motivation
such as interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and the like
rather than extrinsic motivation such as expected
evaluation, expected reward, competition, and the like.
Further Amabile (1998) contended that creativity is the
function of intrinsic motivation, domain-relevant skills,
and creativity-relevant skills. In sum, the overwhelming
evidences demonstrate that the social environment
plays a key role on the motivational orientation, which
in turn positively or negatively impacts the creativity.
Specifi cally, intrinsic motivation is especially conducive
to creative expression, whereas extrinsic motivation is
detrimental to creative behavior; nevertheless, to some
extent extrinsic motivation might be beneficial for
creativity under some conditions (Hennessey, 2003). Most
important, a supportive social environment is the sine qua
non for developing these motivations (Amabile, 1998,
2001).
Another holistic view of creativity was suggested
by Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1996) systems model of
creativity. He asserted three essential forces underline
creative endeavors: (1) a cultural domain, which contains
rules and norms of creative expression; (2) a social
field, in which recognition and evaluation of creative
ideas; and (3) the individual, who brings thoughts and
actions to the domain. If a creative person wants to
have some contributions to the system, he needs to
learn and recognize not only the rules and the content
of that domain, but also the criteria and preferences of
the field. For instance, Csikszentmihalyi identified three
major dimensions which are relevant to creativity: the
clarity of structure, the centrality within the culture, and
accessibility (p.38). Centrally, this theory denoted that
creative achievements are not exclusively located on
merits of individuals but on the interaction among those
three components. As Csikszentmihalyi (1988) clearly
put, “we cannot study creativity by isolating individuals
and their works from the social and historical milieu in
which their actions are carried out” (p.325).
Sternberg and Lubart (1995) investment theory of
creativity posited that the creative person should act like
a good investor and “buy low and sell high.” The creative
individual, metaphorically, buys low by rejecting accepted
ideas in the society, and then sells high when others realize
its value and follow the thread. The notion of selling ideas
signifi es the social environment as an important variable
in creativity (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998). According to the
confl uence model of creativity (Lubart, 1990; Sternberg &
Lubart, 1995), they also recognized six potential resources
that help or hinder creativity: intelligence, knowledge,
and thinking styles are cognitive resources; personality
and motivation are conative resources; and finally the
environment. A confluence of those resources is needed
for an individual portfolio of creative resources. In
essence, “creativity is in part the product of an interaction
between a person and his or her context” (Sternberg &
Lubart 1995, p.10). The environment that encourages and
stimulates creative thoughts and rewards those behaviors
is beneficial for creativity. Accordingly, they criticized
the society with high demands on standardized tests at the
expense of creative power. In his view, Sternberg (2006)
maintained that society should play the role to “increase
the rewards and decrease the costs” (p.97) for the sake of
development of creativity.
CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES ON
CREATIVITY
A review of the literature has shown that Easterners
and Westerners hold similar but not identical
conceptualizations of creativity (Niu & Sternberg, 2006;
Rudowicz, 2003). Oral, Kaufman, and Agars’ (2007)
research noted that numerous fi ndings in Western contexts
on creativity are in line with another culture to some
extent. It implied that it is a consistency across culture
in terms of creative abilities. For instance, they found
that creativity had tendency to increase with age and the
importance of intrinsic motivation on creativity, which are
consistent with Western studies. Above all, this attribution
might be accessible for cross-cultural collaborations and
information sharing. In addition, in light of aesthetic
judgements, there is a significant consensus of opinion
among experts across cultures (Niu & Sternberg, 2001,
2003). One empirical study evidenced this intention.
Paletz and Peng (2008) found that both novelty and
appropriateness play an important role on ratings of
creativity across Chinese, Japanese, and Americans.
In particular, appropriateness was more important for
the Americans and Japanese than for the Chinese. Also
novelty weighed heavily overall for creativity. Their
findings confirmed that East Asian cultures are not
homogeneous. Moreover, Runco and Johnson(2002)
18
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
The Interplay Between Culture and Creativity
investigated how parents and teachers from the U.S.
and India perceived creative traits in their children and
students. The results displayed the similar pattern, which
was creative characteristics as favorable and uncreative
characteristics as undesirable. Specifically, U.S. parents
and teachers showed signifi cantly more attention on those
clusters than their counterparts.
The study of cultural differenceon creativity, Ng (2003)
utilized the samples from China and U.S. and found that
the society of liberal individualism is more conducive
to people engaging in creative behavior than the society
of Confucianism. The possible reason is that the
psychological bound constrain the collectivistic members
to have premium to behave in a creative manner. It is said
that Confucian ideology has the tendency toward prizing
collectivism and social conformity (Dineen & Niu, 2008).
In addition, in Asian classroom, a paradox illustrated
that the Confucian tradition of learning reinforces the
conformity, which is detrimental to creative performance
(Craft, 2008). The emphasis of this peculiar conception
of learning is on moral cultivation: teachers as moral
exemplar and students as docile sponges. There is a clear-
cut hierarchical relationship between teacher and student
(Radclyffe-Thomas, 2007).
Ng and Smith(2004) confirmed this assertion by
comparing the attitudes of teachers on creativity behaviors
between conservative-autocratic teachers and liberal-
democratic teachers. The results showed that the latter
had a stronger tendency to encourage creativity behaviors
in class. They also found that cultural individualism
had a positive influence on liberal-democratic teaching
attitudes, whereas cultural collectivism had opposite
effects. They concluded that the constraint of Confucian
tradition might be a closing of the Asian creative mind.
Nevertheless, some beneficial evidence provides a
promising ground for promoting creativity in a relatively
conformist social context. For example, Niu and Sternberg
(2001, 2003) found the discrepancy in creative expression
between the Chinese and American students, but it is
still possible to temporarily enhance Chinese students’
creative performance through appropriate instructions.
They concluded that the environment has a potential and
important impact on individuals’ artistic creativity. In
line with these fi ndings, Dineen and Niu (2008) utilized
a creative pedagogic model developed in the U.K.,
which showed a considerable effect on perception and
production of creativity for Chinese students. The visual
arts works produced by Chinese students through teaching
intervention demonstrated high quality of creative
productions, comparing with traditional Chinese teaching
strategy. Further, the qualitative data also exhibited the
merits of this approach that boosted learners’ intrinsic
motivation and confidence, which is a vital component
of creative development. Because of the effectiveness
and appropriateness of this model, they suggested the
possibility of temporally boosting learners’ creativity
through the provision of a suitable learning environment.
CONCLUSION
The relationship between cultural and creative expression
is not only reciprocal but also the conflux of historical,
societal, and individual variables. This profound infl uence
evinces perception of creativity and creative expression
(Niu & Sternberg, 2001; Rudowicz, 2003). Ludwig
(1992) recognized four powerful cultural impacts on
the engagement of creativity activities: subject, form
of expression, functions of expression serving, and
types of individuals selected. In addition, Lubart and
Sternberg (1998) underlined that within the framework
of social environment; it not only may provide physical
or social stimulation but also serves the function of
evaluation of creative products and performances. Thus,
the importance of taking culture into account while
conducting creativity research is identified by Lubart
(1990): With the administration of cross-cultural studies,
“we begin to discover how deeply creativity is bound to
cultural context”(p.55). By doing do, the benefit is that
researchers could have a more holistic picture of creativity
via incorporating sociocultural milieu in the framework of
analysis (Ludwig, 1992; Ng & Smith, 2004).
Given the literature review available at this juncture,
some further suggestions for the cross-cultural study
on creativity might be helpful to uncover the nature of
creativity. First, the majority of studies are based on
comparison cultural groups (e.g., East and West); the
analysis within cultural groups might provide valuable
insights (e.g., Japan and Taiwan). The main reason is
that even under the heritage of Confucianism, East Asian
nations are not homogeneous; within-group differences do
exist (Radclyffe-Thomas, 2007). Furthermore, different
level of cultural variations is also important subjects to be
examined, such as subcultural unites or specifi c contexts
at the individual level (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998). In
brief, the research of place-related infl uences on creativity
provides a promising ground to decrease blind spots when
researchers try to understand creativity.
With regard to assessing creative performance, Lubart
(1990) underscored that although Torrance tests are
widely popular in the cross-cultural creativity research,
the results are questionable as regards actual perceptions
of creativity embodied in the specific culture. Further,
as Amabile (1996) pointed out, the problem of a battery
of creativity tests is validity. Namely, the nature of those
assessments developed by the Western psychologists only
limits to narrow ranges of abilities that inappropriately
captures the general creative behaviors as well as good
indicators. Additionally, that is why sometimes the poor
performance of creativity tests developed by American
on people in different countries thanks to cultural bias in
the understanding of creativity (Paletz & Peng, 2008). As
19 Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
Kuan Chen Tsai (2012).
Cross-Cultural Communication, 8
(2), 15-20
a result, Amabile (1996) concluded that eventually the
creativity test should take social, cultural, and historical
factors into consideration. Although it is a big challenge
for social psychologist and other creativity researchers, it
is a necessary process for further research and to develop
alternative context-suitable tests in order to authentically
refl ect the creative performance in a specifi c context.
For the purpose of pedagogy, intercultural
communication, especially in the education context, might
be also an important role to bridge to the cultural gap
(Radclyffe-Thomas, 2007). For example, if East educators
who want to promote creativity in their classrooms,
what strategies could they use? What pitfalls might they
face? How to overcome some limits of their educational
systems? Here, an action research conducted by Dineen
and Niu (2008) could serve as a good example.On the
one hand, Eastern educators could take advantage of
research fi ndings (e.g., Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004)
form the West perspective as examples and grounds; on
the other hand, they also should take context and culture
into consideration. For example, a number of creativity
activities and workbooks for adult and children were
developed by Western (Davis, 2006). As a result, Asian
teachers could utilize those resources as a reference when
applying in their classroom. But they might change the
content and format to fit the context.The chances are
what work for their counterparts do not necessarily work
for their own situations. Taken together,more successful
creativity promoting in classroom across all subject areas
and cultures should be observed and documented. For
instance, the study from Dineen and Niu (2008) provides
a good example for implementation of U.K. model
on Chinese classroom.It would be useful to follower
researchers and practitioners at various points in their
journeys of teaching creativity in order to highlight
effective pedagogy for moving forward (Edelson, 1999).
In sum, creativity scholars are recognizing that
sociocultural values do play a key role in conceptualization
and actualization of creativity (Rudowicz, 2003). Under
the umbrella of globalization, nevertheless, to what extent
each society could resist this phenomenon in order for
preserve of its unique value and simultaneously leaves
some room for creative development.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the
Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business
Review, 76(5), 76-87.
Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond Talent. American Psychologist,
56(4), 333.
Cannon M. J. (2010). Understanding Global Cultures:
Metaphorical Journeys Through 29 Nations, Clusters of
Nations, Continents, and Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Craft, A. (2003). The Limits to Creativity in Education:
Dilemmas for the Educator. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 51(2), 113-127. DOI:10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-
00229
Craft, A. (2008). Tensions in Creativity and Education: Enter
Wisdom and Trusteeship?. In A. Craft, H. Gardner & G.
Claxton (Eds.), Creativity, Wisdom, and Trusteeship (p.16-
34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Craft, A., Gardner, H. & Claxton, G. (2008). Nurturing
Creativity, Wisdom, and Trusteeship in Education. In A.
Craft, H. Gardner & G. Claxton (Eds.), Creativity, Wisdom,
and Trusteeship (pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, Culture, and Person: A
Systems View of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The
Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychology Perspectives
(pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the
Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted Children and Gifted Education: A
Handbook for Teachers and Parents. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Dineen, R. & Niu, W. (2008). The Effectiveness of Western
Creative Teaching Methods in China: An Action Research
Project. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
2(1), 42-52. DOI:10.1037/1931-3896.2.1.42
Edelson, P. (1999). Creativity and Adult Education. New
Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 81, 3.
Feldman, D. & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and
Education: An American Retrospective. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 36(3), 319-336.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A Theory of Individual Creative Action in
Multiple Social Domains. The Academy of Management
Review, 21(4), 1112.
Hennessey, B. A. (1995). Social, Environmental and
Developmental Issues and Creativity. Educational
Psychology Review, 7(2), 163.
Hennessey, B. A. (2003). The Social Psychology of Creativity.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 253.
Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The Conditions of
Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity:
Contemporary Psychology Perspectives (pp. 11-38). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1990). Creativity and Cross-cultural Variation.
International Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 39.
Lubart, T. I. & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Creativity Across Time
and Place: Life Span and Cross-cultural Perspectives. High
Ability Studies, 9(1), 59-59.
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Culture and Creativity. American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 46(3), 454.
Moeller, H. G. (2006). The Philosophy of the Daodejing.
Chichester. NY: Columbia University Press.
20
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
The Interplay Between Culture and Creativity
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Something Old, Something New:
Revisiting Guilford's Conception of Creative Problem
Solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3, 4), 267-276.
Ng, A. K. (2003). A Cultural Model of Creative and Conforming
Behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 223.
Ng, A. K. & Smith, I. (2004). The Paradox of Promoting
Creativity in the Asian Classroom: An Empirical
Investigation. Genetic, Social & General Psychology
Monographs, 130(4), 307-330.
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural Influences
on Artistic Creativity and Its Evaluation.
International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225-241.
DOI:10.1080/00207590143000036
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and School
Influences on Student Creativity: The Case of China.
Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114. DOI:10.1002/
pits.10072
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Philosophical Roots of
Western and Eastern Conceptions of Creativity. Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1), 18-38.
DOI:10.1037/h0091265
Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C. & Agars, M. D. (2007). Examining Creativity
in Turkey: Do Western Findings Apply?. High Ability
Studies, 18(2), 235-246. DOI:10.1080/13598130701709590
Paletz, S. B. F. & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit Theories of Creativity
Across Cultures: Novelty and Appropriateness in Two
Product Domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
39(3), 286-302. DOI: 10.1177/0022022108315112
Radclyffe-Thomas, N. (2007). Intercultural Chameleons or
the Chinese Way? Chinese Students in Western Art and
design Education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher
Education, 6(1), 41-55. DOI:10.1386/adch.6.1.41_1
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and Culture: A Two Way
Interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
47(3), 273.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55(1), 657-687. DOI:10.1146/annurev.
psych.55.090902.141502
Runco, M. A. & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents’ and
Teachers’Implicit Theories of Children’s Creativity: A
Cross-cultural Perspective. Creativity Research Journal,
14(3-4), 427-438.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E. & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The
Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review.
Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388. DOI:10.1207/
s15326934crj1604_1
Shi, J., Qu, X. & Lin, T. (2007). Creativity and Its Cultivation.
In A.G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A Handbook for Teachers (pp.
65-75). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientifi c Publishing.
Simonton, D. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, Personal,
Developmental, and Social Aspects. American Psychologist,
55(1), 151-158. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151
Simonton, D. & Shing-Shiang, T. (2010). Creativity in Eastern
and Western Civilizations: The Lessons of Historiometry.
Management & Organization Review, 6(3), 329-350.
DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00188.x
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative Thinking in the Classroom.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 325.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98. DOI:10.1207/
s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the Crowd:
Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various Approaches to and Defi nitions of
Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity:
Contemporary Psychology Perspectives (pp. 99-121). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the Classroom: What
Research Says to the Teacher. West Haven, CT: National
Education Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The Nature of Creativity as Manifest in
IitsTest. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity:
Contemporary Psychology Perspectives (pp. 43-75). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Research on Creativity. In D. J.
Treffinger (Ed.), Creativity and Giftedness (pp. 87-96).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
DiLiello, T. C. & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing
Organizational Leadership Capacity for the Future: Toward
a Model of Self-leadership, Innovation and Creativity.
Journal of Managerial Psychology: Self-leadership, 21(4),
319-337.
Walberg, H. J. (1988). Creativity and Talent as Learning. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
Psychology Perspectives (pp. 340-361). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
