WEIHUA NIU ROBERT STERNBERG

Contemporary Studies on the Concept of Creativity: the East and the West
ABSTRACT

This article reviews contemporary studies on the concept of creativity across two culturesEastern (Asian) cultures and Western (American and European) cultures by examining two bodies of literature. One is on peoples implicit theories of creativity across different cultures and the other is on crosscultural studies of creativity. Studies on implicit theories of creativity in the East suggest that many Asians have similar but not identical conceptions of creativity to many people in the West. Cross-cultural studies of creativity reveal that Easterners and Westerners differ, on average, in their divergent-thinking performance and creative expressions. A view of creativity as relatively culture-specific is presented and the appropriateness of using divergent-thinking tests to measure creativity is discussed. You may never see a more beautiful movie and certainly no more majestic film has yet been made. William Gallagher, BBC NEWS. One of the best adventure movies of the last decade, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is also gravely and eerily beautiful; poetic and moving in ways that we usually dont associate with violent genre film. Micheal Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE. In Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, director Ang Lee has produced the least interesting film of his career. He hesitated and then lost in his choices of pursuing either artistic or commercial success, expressing either romance or action, and attracting either Chinese or Western audiences. XINSILU NEWS

INTRODUCTION

269

Volume 36

Number 4

Fourth Quarter 2002

Contemporary Studies

It is obvious that the movie was made for Western audiences. It intended to introduce them to Chinese values, but was not successful. For example, the movie attempted to emphasize the value of forgiveness, but you cannot feel this forgiveness from watching it. XingGuo Xue, NEW CENTURY CHINA The film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was screened worldwide in 2001. The above texts were selected from two film critique websites, one American, and the other Chinese. The film was recognized as a big success in the Western society; however, it was strongly criticized by its Chinese audiences. What one audience saw as creative, another saw as pedestrian. Observing this controversy, we, as psychologists, can ask ourselves whether there is such a thing as a truly global concept of creativity. One controversy in the creativity literature concerns whether or not the concept of creativity is universally meaningful (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, Plucker & Mark, 1998). There are two camps of researchers. One camp suggests that people in different cultures perceive creativity somewhat differently (Frank, 2001; Lubart & Sternberg, 1998; Niu, 2001; Niu & Sternberg, 2001; Rudowicz & Hui, 1997). The other believes that there is a universal understanding of this concept (Guilford, 1975; Plucker & Mark, 1998). Some major theories of creativity have been established based on the latter viewpoint. However, after examining historical documents in different human civilizations, some researchers have suggested that there are multiple roots for peoples conceptions of creativity and that each has a different philosophical base (Albert & Runco, 1999; Lubart, 1999; Niu, 2001). In the West, there are two origins for the concept of creativity: One is the Biblical idea of Gods creation, and the other is the ancient Greek expression of the inspiration from the Muses (Albert & Runco, 1999; Niu, 2001; Weiner, 2000). In China, the concept of creativity emanates from the idea of the endless producing and renewing changes of nature the dao, Tai-ji, or yin-yang changes (Berthrong, 1998; Hang, 1986; Niu, 2001). Ancient views of creativity across different cultures share some common features; for example, creativity was perceived as endless producing and renewing as well as goodness by both ancient Chinese and Greeks; the two civilizations differed, however, in some core characteristics; for example, the ancient Greeks emphasized the feature of novelty, whereas the ancient

270

Journal of Creative Behavior

Chinese emphasized social values (Niu, 2001). In contrast to these ancient societies, modern societies tend to have more interactions across cultures; however, people in different cultures may have different social values and attitudes that deeply affect their motivations, attitudes, emotions, and thinking (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Because creativity is an important concept of human cognition, and its value is becoming more and more important in modern societies, it is worthwhile to investigate how culture influences modern peoples conceptions of creativity and these peoples creative performances. In psychology, there are two conventional approaches to studying the concept of creativity (Sternberg, 1985a). One approach is to study peoples explicit theories of creativity, in which psychologists or other experts test their own hypotheses using some assessments of creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Torrance, 1966). The second approach is to study implicit theories of creativity. In studies of implicit theories, psychologists, teachers, laypersons, or others are asked about their views of creativity. Typically, participants in such studies describe the characteristics of creative individuals or rate the importance of particular personal characteristics potentially relevant to creativity (e.g. Gough, 1961/ 1980). Both methods are useful and important in investigating the nature of creativity. In fact, they complement each other to provide a broad understanding of the concept of creativity. In this article, we will examine the current literature in studying the concept of creativity across different cultures mainly the cultures of the East (Asian cultures) and the West (American and European cultures) to investigate whether the concept of creativity is universally meaningful, and whether it is the same concept across cultures. We will organize our presentation along the lines of the two main approaches to studying creativity. First, we examine research studying implicit theories of creativity of people in the West and the East, and then we examine studies comparing peoples creative performances cross-culturally. Based on these reviews, we offer our own view of the concept of creativity.
IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY Creativity in the West: Research on American and European Populations

Most studies that examine peoples theories of creativity have been conducted in Western societies, particularly in American society (Connell, 1994; Runco, 1990a, 1990b; Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985b). In an earlier study, Sternberg (1985b) asked both experts

271

Contemporary Studies

(such as professors in the fields of art, business, philosophy, and physics) and laypeople about the characteristics of an ideally intelligent, creative, or wise person. He found that peoples conceptions of creativity overlapped with those of intelligence and wisdom; however, there emerged some distinctive characteristics of creativity that do not necessarily exist in conceptions of intelligence and wisdom, such as imagination, aesthetic taste, intuition and inquisitiveness, freedom of spirit, and an unwillingness to be bound by the rules of society. In another study, Runco and Bahleda (1986) surveyed undergraduate students and a group of artists by asking them to list the characteristics of three different kinds of creativity, namely, artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. The results suggest that the core characteristics of creativity as perceived by laypeople are very similar to the core characteristics as found in explicit theories reported by psychologists in the creativity literature. For example, both laypeople and psychologists who study creativity describe creative individuals as being imaginative, confident, independent, intelligent, and having intrinsic motivations. Another important finding of this study suggests that peoples conceptions of creativity are domainspecific. Although creative individuals in different domains may share some core characteristics, they differ in other characteristics. For example, being logical and willing to experiment are important in scientific creativity but not in artistic and everyday creativity; likewise, expressiveness and emotionality seem to be necessary only in artistic creativity, and helpfulness is necessary only in everyday creativity. Following the mid-80s, there have been increasingly more investigations studying implicit theories of creativity across different social and age groups of people, such as elementary and high school teachers (Lesser, 1995; Westby & Dawson, 1995), parents and teachers of elementary school students (Runco, 1989; Runco & Diane, 1993), artists (Runco, McCarthy, & Stevenson, 1994), managers in major companies in Canada (Kercz, 1993), and laypeople across various ages and professions in Western populations (Hoskens & deBoeck, 1991; Katz, 1987; Knight & Parr, 1999; Puccio & Chimento, 2001). Cumulative evidence has suggested that at least eight characteristics are important in the West in peoples conceptions of creativity. These eight characteristics are innovation/imagination, intrinsic motivation, independence, risk taking, a wide range of interests, intelligence, high levels of activity/energy, and a sense of humor.

272

Journal of Creative Behavior

Creativity in the East: Research on Asian Populations

Research on implicit theories of creativity in the East is sparse. Here, we select four distinct Asian cultures, namely, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Korean, to examine how Asians perceive creativity. Chinese. Studies that have examined Chinese peoples implicit theories of creativity have been conducted only recently. In one study, Rudowicz and Hui (1997) found that, similar to the Western conception of creativity, Chinese conceptions tend to include the following characteristics: innovative ideas, imagination, intelligence, independence, and high levels of activity/energy. However, the characteristics of sense of humor and aesthetic taste were missing in their sample, and there were at least two characteristics (inspirational, and contributing to the progress of society) included in the Chinese conception of creativity that are not reported in the U.S. studies. Thus, Rudowicz and Huis (1997) study suggests that the concept of creativity is at least partially culture-specific. This finding suggests that studies of creativity should take the factor of culture into consideration. At the same time, several other studies have been conducted to investigate peoples implicit theories of creativity in various subgroups of the Chinese population, such as primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong (Chan & Chan, 1999, Lau & Li, 1996), college students in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (Rudowicz & Yue, 2000; in press; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002), primary school teachers in Singapore (Cheng, 1999), and laypersons in Taiwan (Wu, 1994). Like Rudowicz and Hui (1997), these researchers have found that Chinese people from different subgroups share their core concept of creativity with Western people. One unique component in the Chinese conception, seen in most of these aforementioned studies and that is uniformly missing in the Western conception, is the moral component of creativity. For example, Wu (1994) found that creativity in the Taiwanese Chinese conception involved some ethical standard. Interestingly, this moral component also has been found in Taiwanese conceptions of intelligence (Yang & Sternberg, 1997b; see also Yang & Sternberg, 1997a). At the same time, some Chinese researchers have also found some components of creativity important in the Western conception to be missing in the Chinese conception, such as aesthetic appreciation and humor (Rudowicz & Yue, 2000). Several explanations have been offered for the cultural differences between Chinese and Western people in their

273

Contemporary Studies

conceptions of creativity. Chan and Chan (1999) argued that Chinese culture has a more collectivist orientation than does the West; thus, group interest seems more important than do the interests of individuals. Rudowicz and Yue (2000) offered another possibility that the Chinese are more inclined to emphasize the role a person must perform in life than are people in the West. As a result, Chinese culture emphasizes more the importance of group values or morality in understanding of the concept of individual creativity than does Western culture. Whereas some studies have emphasized differences across Chinese and Western conceptions of creativity, other studies have focused on the differences in subgroups of the Chinese population. For example, Rudowicz and Yue (2000) found that Taiwanese college students value more the characteristic of enjoying life in judging a creative person than do their Hong Kong and Mainland counterparts. Mainland college students value more the characteristic of independence or individualism in evaluating a persons creativity than do their Hong Kong and Taiwan counterparts. However, beyond these minor differences, overall, there appears to be a shared core concept of creativity among all Chinese populations. Indian. Very few studies have directly addressed the modern Indian concept of creativity. Two studies available in English caught our attention. One study focuses on scientific creativity and the other focuses on artistic creativity. In one study, Kapur, Subramanyam, and Shah (1997) interviewed 20 Indian scientists about their ideas regarding creativity. The interview addressed questions such as the concept of creativity, personality traits of creative individuals, the situation of Indian science in the world, and the factors influencing the development of Indian scientific creativity. The study yielded several interesting findings. First, in defining the concept of creativity, Indian scientists referred to two different abilities the ability to contribute something new and the ability to synthesize and integrate both of which distinguished creative scientists from merely productive scientists. Indian scientists also expressed the belief that the processes involved in artistic and scientific creativity are different: To them, scientific creativity required more logic and rules and seemed to have a greater impact on society than did artistic creativity. Second, when describing the personality traits of the creative individual, Indian scientists believed that there were certain characteristics shared by creative individuals, such as curiosity, self-

274

Journal of Creative Behavior

motivation, absorption, risk-taking behavior, open-mindedness, as well as broad interests and aesthetic taste. All these traits also were found in the Western view of creativity. Finally, all interviewed scientists considered themselves to be less creative than were their colleagues in the Western world. They attributed this lack of creativity to the cultural influence of Indian society, in which the obedience, religion, superstition, and social etiquette required for diverse hierarchical relationships are encouraged more than individual development. Indian people, they felt, were also very context-sensitive, allowing them to tolerate a great deal of dissociation and detachment from objects. As a result, Indian scientists felt they lacked the ability to synthesize and integrate information, skills they believed were important to creativity. They also believed that they excessively emphasize emotional connection to one another, resulting in less independence. The authors concluded that all the aforementioned factors in Indian societies depressed scientific creativity, but might nurture Indian artistic creativity in forms different from the West, a conclusion that was only suggested but not fully investigated by this study. In an earlier study, researchers outside psychology tried to investigate how Indian artists understood creativity (Maduro, 1976). In this study, a group of traditional Indian painters were interviewed about their views regarding artistic creativity. The results showed that, compared with Westerners, Indians tended to emphasize the integration of new ideas and old ideas. Therefore, to be creative, an Indian person should experience recreation or reactivation of what already exists in his or her mind. The above two studies provide important information on how Indian experts in two different domains think about creativity. It seems that the cultural specificity of creativity in the Indian context is also domain-specific: In the domain of art, a domain in which traditional norms and values might be more relevant, Indian artists tend to diverge from Western views. In the domain of science, Indian scientists have views similar to those of Western scientists. It is worth noticing that the above two studies used qualitative methods rather than quantitative methods. There are some quantitative studies that have attempted to study Indian creativity using a more typical population, such as college students. However, these studies did not directly address how Indian people perceive creativity; rather, they were focused on how people perceive themselves as creative, and thus they are less comparable to other studies covered in this article. For

275

Contemporary Studies

example, over almost two decades, Khatena and his colleagues (Khatena & Raina, 1977; Palaniappan, 1996) examined how people across different cultures perceive their own creativity. They believed that if a person rated herself or himself highly in traits related to creativity, she or he would be more likely to think and behave creatively than would an average person (Palaniappan, 1996, p. 96). Their results did show a cultural difference in peoples self-evaluations. In the comparison between these two samples American vs. Indian Indians tended to rate themselves highly on the traits of initiative (the ability to direct, produce, and bring about changes in procedures and organization), individuality (the ability to critique others and the characteristics of preferring working alone), and artistry (the ability to produce artistic or literary pieces), whereas Americans tended to rate themselves highly on the traits of environmental sensitivity (traits such as openness to others idea and sensitivity to meaningful relations), selfstrength (traits such as self-confidence, versatility, and willingness to take risks), and intellectuality (the ability to self-explore and enjoy challenging tasks). However, Khatena and his colleagues did not further interpret their results nor did they relate their findings to more general cultural differences between India and the U.S. Japanese. Similar to studies of Indian creativity, studies of Japanese creativity are very few and Japanese psychologists have adopted different methodologies from American psychologists (Miller, 1997; Petkus, 1994; Shigemasu, Yokoyama, Stern, & Komazaki, 1993). For example, Petkus (1994) examined the literatures of Japanese martial arts and ancient Japanese philosophy. He found that creativity in a Japanese context is different from creativity in a Western context. He suggested that Japanese people perceive creativity as an understanding of, and a sensitivity to, the fundamental dynamics of nature, and practicing martial arts can develop a humans ability to be acutely aware of the existence of him or herself in the world. Korean. Similar to the research in other Asian societies, research on Korean creativity is very sparse (only 11 entries have been found from PsycINFO). In a recent study, Lim and Plucker (2001) studied Korean laypeoples conceptions of creativity and compared them with those of an American sample. The results of this study suggest that Koreans have similar but not identical views of creativity with respect to Americans. Both Koreans and Americans perceive creativity in terms of a set of four factors, including the factors of (1) personality and

276

Journal of Creative Behavior

Comparison between the West and the East

general creativity, (2) perseverance, (3) independence and deviance, and (4) cognition and motivation. However, the concept of creativity is viewed more favorably by Americans than by Koreans. More specifically, Koreans see the creator as a loner whereas Americans see the creator as a leader. With few reported investigations of peoples implicit theories among Asian populations, it is hard to draw conclusions about the differences in what constitutes creativity in the West and the East. However, we can begin to see evidence supporting the view that peoples views of creativity in the East are not identical to those in the West. There might be some universal core characteristics of creativity shared by people in all societies, such as originality, imagination, intelligence, independence, and possibly high activity and energy levels. However, people in Eastern societies seem to emphasize the social and moral components of creativity, whereas people in Western societies appear to emphasize some individual characteristics such as humor and aesthetic tastes. This difference might reflect the different worldviews held by people from these two cultures. Whereas an individualistic Westerner sees more of the value of personal success as a creator, a collectivistic Asian might see more of the social and moral value an individual can bring to the society. The primary goal of cross-cultural studies based on explicit theories of creativity has not been to examine the conception of creativity cross-culturally, but rather to investigate differences in creative performance and expression across cultures. These studies have adopted either of two different kinds of views of creativity, based on two opposing assumptions about creativity (e.g., Colligan, 1983; Jaquish & Ripple, 1985; Misra, 1987; Rudowicz, Lok, & Kitto, 1995; Saeki, Fan, & Van Dusen, 2001; Shigemasu, Yokoyama, Stern, & Komazaki, 1993). The first assumption is that there is a universal concept of creativity that can be measured by a standardized or a universally meaningful test. The second assumption is that the concept of creativity is relatively culture-specific and domain-specific, and thus any measurement of this psychological construct should take into account the factors of culture and domain. Most cross-cultural studies on creativity are based on the first assumptionthat the concept of creativity is universal. Creativity often is further understood as divergent thinking and as being measured through various divergent-thinking tests, such as Guilfords Unusual Uses Test (Guilford, 1960,

EXPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES

Research Based on the Notion of Creativity as Universal

277

Contemporary Studies

1984, 1986), the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1966), and the Test for Creative Thinking Drawing Production (TCT-DP) (Jellen & Klaus, 1989). Among these tests, the TTCT is by far the most widely employed, especially for school aged-children. Many researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Plucker, 1998; Sternberg, 1995) have challenged the validity and usefulness of divergent-thinking tests for the study of creativity. The two main criticisms are that: (a) divergent-thinking tests measure only a superficial level of creativity and that (b) performance on these tests has only a weak relationship to real-life creativity. Nonetheless, given their ease of administration and their standardized procedures, many studies examining creativity cross-culturally have used divergent-thinking tests as their sole measures of creativity. Using divergent thinking tests to compare peoples creative performance between the West and the East started as early as the late 1960s. Societies under investigation as counterparts with American society were mainly Asian societies such as Chinese (e.g., Jaquish & Ripple, 1985; Rudowicz, Lok, & Kitto, 1995;Wang & Wu 1975), Indian (e.g., Sraus & Straus, 1968), Japanese (e.g., Saeki, Fan & Van Dusen, 2001; Takano & Ryuichi, 1989; Torrance & Sato, 1979), and Arab-Islamic societies (Khaleefa, Erdos, & Ashria, 1996; Mari, 1976, 1983). Cross-cultural studies of creativity based on explicit theories have yielded different, and sometimes, contradictory results. Two divergent results have been obtained. One suggests that, as compared to Westerners, Asians tend to perform less well on divergent-thinking tests. In contrast, other studies suggest the opposite. Various explanations have been proposed by both sets of researchers. Results that favor Westerners. Many cross-cultural studies have shown that Asians tend not to perform as well as their Western counterparts on various divergent-thinking tests. Several explanations have been proposed, one of which suggests that this cultural disparity is due to the different levels of modernization as well as freedom of expression that exist in both societies. According to this argument, the greater the degrees of modernization and freedom of expression in a society, the more creative its members are likely to be. For example, in an earlier study, Straus and Straus (1968) asked both Indian and American children to generate ideas to solve puzzles. The quantity and quality of the ideas generated were calculated to represent childrens creativity. The results showed that Indian

278

Journal of Creative Behavior

participants performed worse than did their American counterparts on this task. The results also showed that Indian girls performed significant worse than did Indian boys on this test, and the gender difference of Indian sample was larger than that of an American sample. They attributed their result to the fact that that Indian society is more restrictive and normative than is American society. Its restriction seems to have had stronger effects on Indian girls than on Indian boys. Over a period of two decades, Mari (1971, 1983), using the TTCT, conducted a series of studies to compare students creative performance between American youths and their counterparts in Arabic societies. He found that American youths performed better on the TTCT than did their Arabic peers. He also compared Arabic participants across different religious backgrounds (Christian vs. Druze) and geographic areas (urban vs. rural and the Israel vs. the West Bank), and he found that modernization could influence peoples creative performance; In general, the more modern the group, the higher its members were found to score on the TTCT (Mari, 1983). However, the level of modernization and freedom of expression in a society does not always well predict the societys creative potential. By extension, the different levels of modernization and freedom of expression between two societies do not always explain the observed differences in creative performance in these two societies. For example, several studies that attempted to compare the creativity of Westerners with Asians who are living in modernized societies with a high level of intellectual freedom such as Japan (e.g., Kobayashi, 1978; Saeki, Fen & Dusen, 2001), Hong Kong (Jaquish & Ripple, 1985), Taiwan (Wang & Wu, 1975, cited in Rudowicz et al., 1985) and maybe Singapore (Torrance, Gowan, Wu, & Aliotti, 1970), found the same disparity in creative level, that is, Westerners were found to be significantly more creative than were Asians living in these modernized societies. In explaining these results, the researchers in these studies argued that the norms and values of the two cultures the West and the East play a critical role in influencing an individuals creativity. Overall, a collectivistic Asian culture, which tends to encourage conformity and obedience, generally does not favor the development of creativity. In contrast, the more individualistic culture of the West tends to encourage self-exploration in favor of blanket conformity to the societys norms.

279

Contemporary Studies

Results that favor Asians. Not all studies show Asians to be inferior in divergent-thinking tests in comparison with Westerners. In fact, a number of studies have found Asian students to score higher on divergent-thinking tests than do their Western counterparts. For example, Torrance and Sato (1979) found that Japanese students tend to do better than do Americans in the dimensions of flexibility, originality, and elaboration on the figure form of the TTCT. Also using the figural form of the TTCT, Rudowicz, Lok, and Kitto (1995) found that, on average, Hong Kong Chinese children performed significantly better than did their American counterparts. In Mainland China, Zha and her colleague did a series of studies comparing Chinese and German childrens creative performances (Shi, Zha, & Zhou, 1995; Zha, 1986, 1998). They found that Chinese children performed better than did their German counterparts on divergent-thinking tests that required the application of knowledge of mathematics and physics such as listing possible equations using given numbers (Zha, 1998, p.52). However, the German children performed better than did their Chinese counterparts on items that required practical knowledge, such as listing uses of a brick. To explain these results, some researchers propose that the figural form of the divergent- thinking tests generally favor Eastern Asian children because of their exposure to the graphical characters of the Chinese language (e.g., Rudowicz et al. 1995). It is argued that perhaps the graphical characters of the Chinese language, more so than the English alphabet system, enhance the users general spatial-figural ability. Other researchers point to the differences in educational system in explaining these results. They argue that creativity is a highly domain-specific ability, and as such, different educational exposure may lead to the individuals being more creative in certain domains. For example, Zha (1998) believes that Chinese education places a lot of emphasis on mathematics and the natural sciences, but not on other domains, such as language, history, the humanities, or domains that require practical social skills. As a result, Chinese students tend to perform better in mathematical form of creativity tests, whereas Western students tend to shine on other forms of creativity tests (e.g., Zha, 1998), such as generating creative uses for a common object. However, Zhas explanation does not account for all the results that favor Asian students creative performance. For example, Asian students sometimes do better on figural form of the TTCT, which does not require domain-specific knowledge.

280

Journal of Creative Behavior

Research Based on the Assumption of Culture Specificity

Careful examination of these studies has yielded conflicting information about the differences between the creativity of Asians and Westerners. At this point, it is unclear how much of this conflict can be attributed to differences in the divergentthinking tests used in the studies, and how much to historical or social situational factors that may serve as confounding variables. Furthermore, there is an inherent problem involving the internal validity of these creative-thinking tests, in that the tests of divergent thinking may not test the full range of peoples creative thinking. Of course, another confounding factor is the fact that the tests tend to be of Western origin. One noteworthy thing is that all of aforementioned studies generally have adopted the modern Western concept of creativity (in particular, the idea of divergent thinking) in studying the creativity of the Chinese population. There is convincing evidence, however, that Asians hold a somewhat different view of creativity than do Westerners. This discrepancy is found in both laypersons and researchers. Hence, using the same set of tests to compare Eastern and Western creativity may not be appropriate. As many researchers have suggested (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), creativity should not be just a matter of an individual psychological construct, but also a quality that is recognized in a certain domain and by a particular group of people. Using product-orientated tasks and consensual assessment in studying creativity is thus regarded as a better way to investigate creativity, especially in cross-cultural studies (Niu & Sternberg, 2001). The primary feature of product-oriented tasks and consensual measurement of creativity is to ask participants to create a product such as a poem, an art design, or a scientific invention during the experiment. A group of judges (either experts in the test domain or laypersons) is then asked to rate and compare the quality and creativity level of each participants products with the quality and creativity level of all the other products. Amabile (1979) first suggested using this method to measure creativity when she studied the effects of situational factors, such as motivation, on peoples creative performance. Instead of using conventional divergent-thinking tests, Amabile gave her participants heuristic tasks, such as writing short essays or making collages. Because this method involves tasks that correspond more closely to those of real-life creativity than do conventional divergent-thinking tests, it can be regarded as probably more valid and hence more nearly adequate (Amabile, 1996; Lubart & Sternberg, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart,

281

Contemporary Studies

1995). Although many recent studies of creativity have employed this tool in place of more conventional divergentthinking tests, very few studies have been conducted to compare creativity between Western and Eastern populations. In a recent study, Niu and Sternberg (2001) asked college students from China and the United States to participate in two art activitiescollage making and pencil drawing. At the start of the experiment, participants were either primed or not primed to be creative either with or without the instruction of being creative. At the end of the experiment, all the artworks that the participants created were then scanned into a computer file, so that the artwork could remain anonymous and judges could evaluate and compare them in a random fashion. Two groups of judges, one comprising nine Chinese and the other comprising nine American graduate students in psychology, evaluated the qualities of aesthetic appeal, appropriateness, and creativity of these artworks independently, based on their subjective interpretations. They were not given specific guidelines or rules about how to interpret or evaluate these qualities. This study yielded several findings. First, it was found that American students tended to produce more creative and aesthetically pleasing artworks than did their Chinese counterparts. Second, this difference in performance was based on ratings of both American and Chinese judges. Third, the study demonstrated that the criteria used by the American and Chinese judges were only slightly different, which implies that there may be an underlying common concept of creativity. Fourth, the study revealed that compared with that of American students, the artistic creativity of Chinese students was negatively affected by restrictive task constraints, or the absence of explicit instructions to be creative. Overall, these findings seem to be consistent with the notion that an individualistic culture (e.g., that of U.S.) may be more supportive of the development of individual artistic creativity than is a collectivistic culture (e.g., that of China). One central finding of this study was that both American and Chinese raters shared a similar concept of creativity, although there was a greater consensus among the Chinese judges regarding what constitutes creativity than there was among the American judges. This finding indicates that there may be a common understanding of the construct of creativity. The judges were graduate students in psychology, however, and thus may not constitute representative samples of the

282

Journal of Creative Behavior

Chinese or the American population. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Chinese people have, in general, adopted the Western conception of creativity. Research on implicit theories of creativity has shown that there is a difference between the Chinese and Western concepts. Perhaps Chinese scholars, particularly the psychology students who served as raters, have assimilated the Western concept of creativity.
CONCLUSION

There are two major questions addressed in this article. First, do Asians and Westerners understand the concept of creativity differently? That is, are their implicit theories of creativity different? Second, will studies based on explicit theories show differences in peoples creative performance across these two kinds of cultures? Speaking more broadly, is the contemporary concept of creativity universally meaningful, or is it culturally specific? In answering the first question, we reviewed research on implicit theories of creativity in the East and the West, and we found that contemporary Eastern people hold similar, although not identical conceptions of creativity to those of Western populations. In brief, compared with people in the West, Easterners are more likely to view creativity as having social and moral values, and they value more the connection between the new and the old than do Westerners. In contrast, Westerners tend to focus more on some special individual characteristics of creative individuals than do Easterners. We believe that this cultural difference in peoples conceptions of creativity is consistent with the current literature regarding the relationship between culture and cognition (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Peoples worldviews can affect their understanding and evaluation of what constitutes creativity. To address the second question, we reviewed cross-cultural research on peoples creativity, and the results seem to suggest that Asians perform somewhat differently from Westerners in tasks requiring creativity. This difference might not be due entirely to differences in peoples conceptions of creativity. Social values, education, degree of modernization, and other factors might account for differences in peoples creative performance (Niu & Sternberg, in press). However, in terms of measurement, we are seriously concerned about the ecological validity of divergent-thinking tests. Given that there are different focuses between Westerners and Easterners in judging creativity, and that all divergent thinking tests are based on Western ideas of creativity, we believe that these tests should

283

Contemporary Studies

not be used as sole measures of creativity. Use of a productorientated measurement to study creativity, and especially having people from different cultures for product evaluation, should be built into the designs of more studies on creativity. Based upon current literature, we believe that at least in certain domains, such as the domains of art and literature, people from the West and the East have different understandings about what constitutes creativity. This difference in viewing creativity might be rooted in the difference of norms and values between these two cultures. The Westerners idea of a universal concept of creativity can underestimate the creative contribution of the Eastern societies, and may create a new stereotype of Easterners and therefore depress Easterners creativity. We hope this review will generate more studies in the field of culture and creativity. Here, we suggest two lines of research useful to reveal the nature of creativity and its relationship to culture. One is to study peoples implicit theories of creativity in those populations that are the least assimilated to Western cultures, such as those in the rural areas of India and China. The other is to investigate the creative process of people in different cultures, especially in the domains that have more connection with their cultural background.
REFERENCES

ALBERT, R. S., &, & RUNCO, M. A. (1999). A history of research on creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 16-31). New York: Cambridge University Press. ALIOTTI, N. C., BRITT, M. F., & HASKINS, G. P. (1975). Relationships among creativity, intelligence, and achievement measures in Upward Bound students. Psychology in the Schools, 12(4), 423-427. AMABILE, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. BERTHRONG, J. H. (1998). Concerning creativity: a comparison of Chu Hsi, Whitehead, and Neville. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. CHAN, D. W., & CHAN, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 185-195. COLLIGAN, J. (1983). Musical creativity and social rules in four cultures. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 8(1), 39-47. CONNELL, T. J. (1994). The social basis of implicit theories of creativity among high-ability high school students and their teachers. U Wisconsin, Madison, WI, US. CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. FRANK, E. L. (2001). An investigation of creativity among the Kootenai Indian nation of the Pacific Northwest (British Columbia, Washington, Idaho, Montana). U Georgia, US.

284

Journal of Creative Behavior

GAKHAR, S., & LUTHRA, S. (1973). The test-retest reliability of Torrance Tests of Verbal Creative Thinking in a sample of ninth and tenth grade Indian children. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 10(2-3), 48-52. GUILFORD, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement and development. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol 19(2), 107-121. HANG, T. (1986). Notes on the concept of creativity in Chinese philosophy. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13, 283-291. HOSKENS, M., & DEBOECK, P. (1991). An implicit theory of intelligencerelated mental activities. Journal of Personality, 59(4), 793-814. JAQUISH, G. A., & RIPPLE, R. E. (1985). A life-span developmental crosscultural study of divergent thinking abilities. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 20(1), 1-11. KAPUR, R. L., SUBRAMANYAM, S., & SHAH, A. (1997). Creativity in Indian science. Psychology & Developing Societies, 9(2). 161-187. KATZ, R. (Ed.). (1988). Managing professionals in innovative organizations: A collection of readings: New York, NY: Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. KERCZ, R. B. (1993). Understanding the value of implicit theories of creative thinking in teachers and managers. U Toronto, ON, Canada. KHALEEFA, O. H., ERDOS, G., & ASHRIA, I. H. (1996). Creativity in an indigenous Afro-Arab Islamic culture: The case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(4), 268-282. KHALEEFA, O. H., ERDOS, G., & ASHRIA, I. H. (1997). Traditional education and creativity in an Afro-Arab Islamic culture: The case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(3), 201-211. KHATENA, J., & RAINA, M. K. (1977). Creative perceptions of Indian and American college adults. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 44(3), 1050. KOBAYASHI, M. J. (1970). Relationships of intelligence and creativity to anxiety and extroversion-introversion in ninth grade Japanese boys. Boston Coll. KUMAR, G., & RAINA, M. K. (1976). Creative behavior and achievement motivation. Psychological Reports, 39(3), 766. LESSER, M. A. (1995). Teachers implicit theories of creativity. Unpublished Dissertation, New York City: Fordham University, New York. LIM, W., & PLUCKER, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 115-130. LUBART, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339-350). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. LUBART, T. I., & STERNBERG, R. J. (1988). Creativity: The individual, the systems, the approach. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 63-67. MARKUS, H. R., & KITAYAMA, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. MARI, S. K. (1976). Toward a cross-cultural theory of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. 10(2), 108-116.

285

Contemporary Studies

MARI, S. K., & KARAYANNI, M. (1983). Creativity in Arab culture: Two decades of research. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(4), 227-238. MISRA, B. C. (1987). Creativity in students of two types of school. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 24(1), 13-17. NISBETT, R. E., PENG, K., CHOI, I., & NORENZAYAN, A. (2001) Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review. 108(2), 291-310. NIU, W. (2001). The Chinese Concept of Creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. NIU, W. & STERNBERG, R. (in press). Societal and school influence on student creativity. Psychology in School. NIU, W. & STERNBERG, R. (2001) Cultural influence of artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225 241. PALANIAPPAN, A. K. (1996). A cross-cultural study of creative perceptions. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82(1), 96-98. PETKUS, E. (1994). Ninja secrets of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28(2), 133-140. PLUCKER, J. A. (2001) Looking back, looking around, looking forward: The impact of intelligence theories on gifted education. Roeper Review. 23(3), 124-125. PLUCKER, J. A., & DANA, R. Q. (1998). Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use: Relationships to undergraduate students creative achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 39(5), 472-483. PLUCKER, J. A., & RUNCO, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21(1), 36-39. PUCCIO, G. J., & CHIMENTO, M. D. (2001). Implicit theories of creativity: Laypersons perceptions of the creativity of adaptors and innovators. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 92, 675-681. RAWAT, M. S., & GARG, M. K. (1977). A study of creativity and level of aspiration of high school students. Indian Psychological Review, 14(2), 51-53. RUDOWICZ, E., & HUI, A. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(1), 139-157. RUDOWICZ, E., LOK, D., & KITTO, J. (1995). Use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in an exploratory study of creativity in Hong Kong primary school children: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 30(4), 417-430. RUDOWICZ, E., & YUE, X. (2000). Concepts of creativity: similarities and differences among Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 175-192. RUDOWICZ, E., & YUE, X. (in press). Compatibility of Chinese and creative personality, Creative Research Journal. RUNCO, M. A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity, Runco, Mark A. (Ed); Albert, Robert S. (Ed). (1990). Theories of creativity. Sage focus editions, Vol. 115. (pp. 234-252). Thousand Oaks, CA, US; Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; Sage Publications, Inc.

286

Journal of Creative Behavior

RUNCO, M. A., & ALBERT, R. S. (Eds.). (1990). Theories of creativity: Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. (1990). 276pp. RUNCO, M. A., & BAHLEDA, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 93-98. RUNCO, M. A., JOHNSON, D. J., & BEAR, P. K. (1993). Parents and teachers implicit theories of childrens creativity. Child Study Journal, 23(2), 91-113. SAEKI, N., FAN, X., & VAN DUSEN, L. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 24-36. SHI, J., ZHA, Z., & ZHOU, L.(1995). A comparative study on technical creative thinking in super-normal and normal students, Developments in Psychology (Chinese), 1. STERNBERG, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ. NYC: Cambridge University Press. 1985. STERNBERG, R. J. (1985b). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. STERNBERG, R. J., & LUBART, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY, USA: Free Press. STERNBERG, R. J., & LUBART, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. STRAUS, J. H., & STRAUS, M. A. (1968). Family Roles and Sex Differences in Creativity of Children in Bombay and Minneapolis. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 30(1), 46-53. TAKANO, R. (1989). On the assessment criterion for creative thinking. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 17-23. TORRANCE, E. P. (1966). Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. TORRANCE, E. P., GOWAN, J. C., WU, J.-J., & ALIOTTI, N. C. (1970). Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(1), 72-75. TORRANCE, E. P., & SATO, S. (1979). Differences in Japanese and United States styles of thinking. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 4(3), 145151. WESTBY, E. L., & DAWSON, V. L. (1995) Creativity: asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1995,1-10. WILLIAMS, J. D., TEUBNER, J., & HARLOW, S. D. (1973). Creativity in rural, urban, and Indian children. Journal of Psychology, 83(1) Jan 1973, US, http://www. YANG, S.-Y., & STERNBERG, R. J. (1997a). Conceptions of intelligence in ancient Chinese philosophy. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 17(2), 101-119. YANG, S.-Y., & STENBERG, R. J. (1997b). Taiwanese Chinese peoples conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence, 25(1), 21-36. YUE, X. D., & RUDOWIZE, E. (2002). Perception of the most creative Chinese by undergraduates in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Taipei. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, in press.

287

Contemporary Studies

ZHA, Z. (1986). A five-year longitudinal study to the development of gifted children. Acta Psychologica Sinica (Chinese), 1986(2):123-131. ZHA, Z. (1990). A ten-year longitudinal study to the development of gifted children. Acta Psychologica Sinica (Chinese), 1990(2), 115-118. ZHA, Z. (1998). Er Tong Chao Chang Fa Zhan Zhi Tan Mi - Investigation to The Development of Gifted Children (Chinese). Chong Qing: Chong Qing Publisher. Weihua Niu & Robert Sternberg, Department of Psychology, Yale University
AUTHOR NOTE

This project was supported under the Javits Act program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Support of this research does not indicate agreement with any of the positions in the article, and no such agreement should be inferred. We thank Xuexin Zhang, Tina Newman and Lim How and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

288