[PDF] CREATIVITY IN DRAWINGS OF GEOMETRIC SHAPES A Cross

2478_6qt65g8p04w_noSplash_5b89cf60da6d869448b66c8ed2b22a1e.pdf

JOURNAL OFCROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Chen et al. / CULTUREAND CREATIVITY This studye xamineswhetherEuropeanAmericans andChinese differ intheir creationand ev aluationof drawingsofgeometricshapes.Twohundredninety-fourdrawingscreatedby50EuropeanAmericanand48 Chinese collegestudentswere selectedfrom alar gerstudy ofculture andcreati vity.Drawings werejudged byeightChineseandsixEuropeanAmericansfollowingtheConsensualAssessmentTechnique.Thedraw - ingswerecodedbycontenttoexaminewhatthejudgesconsideredcreative.Resultsshowedhighconsensus betweenEuropeanAmericanandChinesejudgesandgreatsimilarityinthecreativityofdrawingsgenerated bythetwogroups.Judgeslikedbestthosedrawingstheyjudgedmorecreative.Themostcreativedrawings

typically involvedrepresentationsofgeometricshapes inconte xts(either concreteor abstract).Results run

countertothebeliefthattherearewideculturalvariationsintheevaluationofandattitudestowardcreativity, demonstrate thefeasibility ofcross-cultural comparisonswith theConsensual AssessmentT echnique,and

providea basisfor furthercross-cultural researchon creativity .Prygn7v7na7H Nrgj7Hhd ezhyeEynr7PdmgAyd

g P-o==iPlK;l-xKy9xs"Fx;"oFj ";T;TC

PoF=CF=lxK g==C==sCF;n CWTF":lC

CHUANSHENGCHEN

JOSEPH KASOF

AMY J.HIMSEL

ELLEN GREENBERGER

(# ' 

QI DONG

GUI XUE

5- !(# zo-;TC5x=;;Vo)CWx)C=,culturalandcross-culturalperspectivesonhumanbehaviorhave

found theirw ayincreasinglyintomainstream psychology. MajorAmerican Psychological Association andAmerican PsychologicalSociety journalsha ve featuredmore andbetter articlesonculture,withtheresultthatourunderstandingofhumanbehaviorinculturalcon - texthas beengreatly enriched.Y etdespite therapid growthinour understandingof therole of culturein humanpsychology ,one areahasbeenlar gelyignored: thecross-cultural study of creativity.Infact, themost recentreviews ofresearch oncreati vity(Simonton, 2000)and of creativityandculture (Raina,1999) hav ecited cross-culturalor cross-ethnicstudiesthat were conductedin the1960s and1970s. Ouro wnliterature searchconf irmedthat little research hasbeen doneon cultureand creativity sincethe 1970s. The lastw aveofcross-culturalresearchoncreati vityw asbased mainlyon theparadigm andinstrumentsdevelopedbyTorrance.1

Researchquestionsincludedtheuniversalityofthe

"fourth-grade slump"(a dev elopmentaldipindiver gentthinking scoreson theTorrance TestsforCreativeThinking),cross-culturalandcross-ethnicvariationsinthemeanscoreson Torrancetests, andgender differences indi vergentthinking scoresacross cultures(see 171

AUTHORS"NOTE:DatacollectionwaspartiallysupportedbyagrantfromtheSchoolofSocialEcologyattheUniversityofCali-

fornia, Irvine.W ewouldlik etothankDenise Chang,MusetteChan,Bronwyn St.John, KristinY oshimoto,Zhansi Muratyan,Kai-

ChiNing,AllisonReigle,MistyMurlock,MimiCho,HectorFlores,YadiraRodriguez,JaneDandy,AmberJohnson,MariKuroda,

DavidMorimoto, andman yother undergraduateresearchassistants fortheir helpwiththisproject. JOURNALOF CROSS-CUL TURALPSYCHOLOGY,Vol.33 No.2,March2002 171-187

© 2002W estern Washington University at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raina, 1999,for asummary). Sincethe early1980s, howe ver ,the Torrance testshavebeen criticized fortheir narrow scopeandlackof demonstrablev alidityand forconfounding cre - ativitywithverbalabilityintheverbalsubtests(Amabile,1983;Hocevar&Bachelor,1989). From theperspecti veofcross-culturalpsychologists,cross-cultural researchbased onthe Torrancetestsalsosufferedtheproblemofusingan"imposedetic"(Berry,1989;Greenfield,

1997)-thatis,whatisdefinedasacreativeresponsetoTorrancetestsinoneculturewasalso

definedascreativeinanotherculture,withoutconsideringwhethersucharesponsewasactu - allyregardedascreativebyindividualsinthesecondculture(seeJones&Shea,1974,foran early discussionof thisissue whenthe yused Torrance testsinMalawi andP apuaNew

Guinea).

Toremedy theproblems withthe Torrance tests,Amabile (1983)championed anew approach tothe assessmentof creativity-the ConsensualAssessment Technique-that focuses onthe subjectiv ejudgmentoforiginalproducts.Relying onthe assumptionthat there existsacommon (orcommon enough)understanding ofwhat iscreati ve, Amabile showedthatgroupsofjudges(typicallynumbering6to12)canprovidereliableandconsen - sual assessmentof thele vel ofcreativity.Theadv antagesof thisapproachareobvious.In principle, itallo wsfortheassessment ofa widerange ofcreati ve products.It isindeed the onlywidelyusedmethodinproduct-basedassessmentofcreativity(Hennessey&Amabile,

1999).Italsohasecologicalvaliditybecausecreativeproductsinreallifearejudgedsubjec-

tivelybypeopleratherthanassessedbyindividualsaccordingtoartificiallyimposedcriteria. Finally,the ConsensualAssessment Technique issensiti vetocultural andhistorical varia- tionsinthejudgmentofcreativity.Itisbasicallyaculture-specificoremicapproachtoevalu- ating creativity. A strictlyemic approach,ho wev er,isnotparticularlyusefulincross-culturalresearch because itdoes notallo wfor directcross-culturalcomparisons.F ortunately, cross-cultural psychologists haveproposedanapproach toresolving thedilemma betweenimposed etic and emicapproaches. Althoughman ycultures (aswellashistorical eras)are different enough thateach spawns itsownunique, emicattrib utesthatdefyquantitati ve comparisons acrossplaceandtime,therearealsomanyuniversaloreticaspectsofculturethatarisefrom shared aspectsof humannature thatpersist ov erman ygenerations. Thefirsttaskofa cross- cultural researcheris todetermine whethera particularaspect ofhuman behavior canbe comparedacrosscultures.Berry(1989;alsoseeSegall,Lonner,&Berry,1998)hasproposed the"derivedetic"approach.Inthatapproach,researchersstartoutbyexaminingtheemicor culture-specificdefinitionsofaparticularpsychologicalconstructandthencomparethevar - ious emicdef initionsfromdifferent cultures.The commonaspectsofemic definitions from differentcultures canbe consideredto beetic andare calledthe deriv edetic. Using thederi vedeticapproach,thisstudy extends theuse ofAmabile" s(1983) Consen - sual AssessmentT echniquetocross-culturalcomparisons ofcreati vity. Theaims ofthis investigationaretoe xaminewhether judgmentabout creativityisnecessarily restrictedto a narrowcultural rangeand toidentify featuresthat helpdef inecreati vitywithin andacross cultures. Inorder toobtain aderi ved eticthat hasbroaderimplicationsforfutureresearch in this area,we selectedtw omajor contemporaryculturesthatv arygreatly inman yrespects. EuropeanAmericansintheUnitedStatesandChineseinChinadifferintheirculturalvalues, economicdevelopment,andtypeofartisticcreativity(Hsu,1981).Ifwecanderivesomeetic aspects ofcreati vityfromstudyingthese two distinctlydif ferentgroups, theconclusions should haveareasonablechance ofbeing applicableto many othercultural groups.

172 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

7at7UN?V7.:L?0ORN?:7?RV?NL7on7&une7)1R7"()Bjcc/sagepub/comOownloaded7from7

Creativityis inv olvedinawiderangeofacti vities.Researchers hav estudied majorcre - ativeactivities suchasgeneratingre volutionary scientific ideas(e.g., thetheoryofrelativ - ity), creatingsignif icantartworks andarchitectural structures,andwritingno vels and poems, aswell asminor formsof creativity thatoccur indaily life(e.g.,Richards,Kinne y, Benet, &Merzel, 1988).F orthis study,weselected creativity indrawingtasks. Drawing taskshavebeenusedinmanypreviousstudiesofcreativity.Inadditiontothecommonlyused CirclesTestbyTorrance,othermeasuresofcreativityhaveincludedstill-lifedrawings(e.g., Csikszentmihalyi &Getzels, 1971),dra wingscreated afterviewingvisual images(e.g., Sobel &Rothenber g,1980),drawings createdin responsetoverbal stimulisuch as"earth from aninsect" spointofvie w"or "thebe ginningoftime"(e.g., Sternberg &Lubart, 1995), the Draw-a-Persontest(Solar ,Bruehl, &Kov acs,1970), anddra wingsoffantasticanimals (e.g.,Pine&Holt,1960).Drawingtasksareagoodstartingpointforcross-culturalresearch using theConsensual AssessmentT echniquebecause theyrelyminimally onlanguage and thus largelyeliminatethis sourceof potentialmeasurement errors.It shouldbe notedthat in additiontocreativityinvolvedintheproductionofdrawings,researchers(e.g.,Barron,1953; Welsh,1975) hav ealsousedpreferencesofdra wingsto measurecreati ve ability. This studyaddresses threemain researchquestions: (a)Are therecultural differences in thejudgmentofdrawingcreativity?(b)Arethereculturaldifferencesintheaveragelevelsof creativityin drawings? and(c)Whichfeatures define creativ edra wingswithin andacross cultures? Thesequestions hav etobeaddressedinsequence because,without commonality in judgmentof creativity ,therecanbenoculturally unbiasedw ayof comparingcreati vity across groups,and thefeatures ofproducts (here,dra wings)that define creativity would therefore beculture specific. There certainlyis reasonto believ ethat culturesmaydifferintheir judgmentsof thecre- ativityof drawings. Differentculturalgroups havegenerated visualrepresentations thatare drasticallydifferentinstyleandcontent.Thereseemstobelittlecommonground,forexam- ple,betweenChineseinkpaintingsandWesternoilpaintings(Sullivan,1997).Givensuchan artisticchasm,onemightsuspectthatwhatisconsideredtobeacreativedrawinginonecul- ture wouldnotnecessarily conv ey thesameassessmentinanotherculture.AsAmabile (1996) hasrepeatedly asserted, The judgmentsobtained by[the ConsensualAssessment Technique] arenecessarily limitedby historicaltimeandplace.Itisdoubtful,forexample,thatagroupofItalianRenaissancepainters wouldagreewellwithagroupofcontemporaryAmericanartistsintheircreativityjudgmentofa setofImpressionistartworks.Clearly,thesharedsubjectivecriteriaofcreativityinanydomain of endeavordochangeo ver timeand dodifferacrosscultures.(pp. 65-66) Nonetheless,somelimitedempiricalevidencesuggeststransculturalsimilarityincreativ- ity judgment.More thanthree decadesago, IrvinChild andhis colleaguesfound cross- cultural similaritiesin aestheticjudgment intheir studiesof artistsand artisansin Japan,the FijiIslands,aBantutribe,andtheUnitedStates(Child,1968;Iwao,Child,&Garcia,1969). Cross-culturalsimilarityinartjudgmentwasalsoreportedforlaypersonsinasmallstudyin which 10Indian villagers,10 Indiancolle gestudents, and10 Canadiancollegestudents judged thereproductions of10 Western paintingsdating fromtheRenaissanceto the20th century (Berlyne,1976). Cross-culturalsimilarities werefurther foundin aestheticprefer - ences fordra wings,decorative objects,andgeometricshapes(Silver ,1983; Welsh, 1969). Takentogether,thesestudiessuggestthattheremaybederivedeticaspectsofcreativityjudg - ment andthat, asa result,the ConsensualAssessment Technique canbe extended tocross-

Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 173

7at7UN?V7.:L?0ORN?:7?RV?NL7on7&une7)1R7"()Bjcc/sagepub/comOownloaded7from7

cultural research.As notedearlier ,this isimportantbecauseonly afterwe determinethat there existderiv edeticaspectsofcreativity canwe proceedto examine cross-culturalsimi - larity ordif ferencesinthele vel ofcreati vity. TherehasbeenlittlecomparativeresearchoncreativityinvolvingChinese.Furthermore, prior researchon thele vels ofdivergentthinking ofAmericans andChinesehasshown inconsistent patterns.Ball andT orrance(1978) foundthatChineseand otherEast Asians scoredhigherthanAmericansandEuropeansonTorrance"svisualperspectivetest.Inalife- span study,howe ver,JaquishandRipple(1984-1985)foundthatAmericans ofall ages scored significantlyhigheron testsof div ergent thinkingabilities thandidChineseinHong Kong.Recently,Rudowicz,Lok,andKitto(1995)foundthatChinesechildreninHongKong scoredhigheronthefiguralTorranceteststhanAmerican,Singaporean,andTaiwanesechil - dren butlower thanGermanchildren.The resultswere rev ersedfor verbal tests.These con - flicting resultsfrom different studiesarelikely dueto many factors.Onepossible factor is theirimposedeticapproach,whichoccurs,forexample,whenTorrancetestsareused(asdis - cussedabove).Otherpossiblefactorsincludesmall-sampleandoutdatedcomparisondata. Research onChinese andAmerican children"s drawings hasalsosuggestedpossible cross-culturaldifferencesindrawingabilitiesandcreativity.Severalresearchers(Cox,1992; Gardner,1989; Winner ,1989)havecommented onChinese children"ssuperiortechnical skills ascompared tothose oftheir Americanand Britishcounterparts. Suchdif ferencesin skills wereattrib utedtothedif feringvie wsand practicesaboutarteducation inChina(i.e., practicesthatemphasizedrawingskills)versustheUnitedStates(i.e.,practicesthatempha- size creativity).Itis notclear whethersuch differential views andpractices hav eactualcon- sequences.Inanunpublishedstudy,Huntsinger,Liaw,Schoeneman,andChing(1995)have shownthatChinesechildrendisplayedahigherlevelofcreativityaswellasdrawingskillson the Draw-a-Persontestthan didAmerican children.Cox, Perara,and Fan (1998),ho wev er, found thatonly thoseChinese childrenwho tookart classeson weekends hadan advantage overtheirBritish counterparts. The thirdpart ofthis studyis analyzingthe objectiv efeatures thatdef inecreati vedraw- ingswithinandacrosscultures.Thereareseveralwaysofidentifyingsuchfeatures.Amabile (1996)hasexaminedcorrelationsbetweenobjectivemeasuresofcollagedesigns(e.g.,num - ber ofcolors used)and judges"creati vityratings. Thisapproachislimitedinits usefulness because itdeconstructs acreati ve productintoitscomponents,whereasthe ke yfeature of creativityoften liesin thewholeness orinte grationof parts.Amabile (1996)has alsoexam - ined theintercorrelations betweenthe different dimensions(e.g., uniquenessandtechnical quality) ofthe judges"ratings toidentify dimensionsthat areclosely relatedto creativity . Thisapproachhelpsclarifythecriteriajudgesuseforcreativityjudgment(uniqueness,nov - elty,etc.),butitdoesnothelpusunderstandwhat,specifically,isuniqueornovelorcreative aboutthecreativeproducts.Inthisstudy,therefore,wetookafirststeptowardunderstanding the featuresof creativ edrawingsbycodingthe drawingsinterms oftheir thematic representations. In summary,thisstudy was carriedout infoursteps:the generationof alar genumber of drawings,selection andcompilation ofthe drawings forcross-cultural judgment,judgment ofalldrawingsbybothChineseandAmericanjudgesaccordingtotheprocedureoftheCon - sensual AssessmentT echnique,andthematiccoding ofthe drawings toallo wfor anunder - standing ofwhat was judgedtobecreati ve bythe two groupsofjudges.

174 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

7at7UN?V7.:L?0ORN?:7?RV?NL7on7&une7)1R7"()Bjcc/sagepub/comOownloaded7from7

S-FeUM

aPOFqJqaPdFR cS zAavfM AoAa WmazafBmxv fhxqovqamAhHxamAvu -uvUC LO4qafzmAh clmauxAhSAhH 26psu y hmSm HamwamzamSmhvAvufhSfM WmflmvauxSsAzmS1 RsmSmzAavuxuzAhvS wmamSmomxvmH MaflA oAaWmaSAlzom fMV26 zAavuxuzAhvSuh vsmehuvmH EvAvmSAhH V36zAavuxuzAhvS uhpsuhA1 RsmU wmam mhafoomHuh SfxuAoSxumhxm xfqaSmSuh AxflzamsmhSu -m qhu- maSuvUuh mAxsofxAvufh1Rsm e1E1SAlzomuhvsmoAaWmaSvqHUwASHu-maSmuhvmalSfMmvshuxuvUG324qafzmAhclmauxAhSC8% cSuAhclmauxAhSC:8tAvuhfSC2cMauxAhclmauxAhSCV6fvsmaSCAhH3qhuHmhvuMumH=1RfA-fuH vsm xfhMfqhHuhWfM mvshuxuvUuh vsuSSvqHU fMxqovqam AhHHaA wuhWxamAvu -uvUC fhoU4qafzmAh clmauxAhSwmamuhxoqHmH1naflvsmoAaWmaSAlzomCwmuhvmhHmHvfSmomxvASvaAvuMumHaAhHfl SAlzomfMLOzAavuxuzAhvSMaflvsm4qafzmAhclmauxAhSAlzomAhHLOMaflvsmpsuhmSmSAl y zomGAhm7qAohql,mafMlAomSAhHMmlAomSAhHAhm7qAohql,mafMzAavuxuzAhvSMaflmAxsfM vwfuhSvaqxvufh xfhHuvufhS=C, qvA xomauxAomaafaGu1m1CA HqzouxAvmHuHmhvuM uxAvufhhql,ma= amSqovmHuhvsmHmomvufhfMVpsuhmSmxASmS1RsmMuhAoSAlzomSwmamm-mhoUHuSvau,qvmHAxafSS WmhHma AhHuhSvaqxvufh xfhHuvufhS1K mouluvmH fqaSAlzomSMfavsuS SvqHUvf LOzma Wafqz ,mxAqSm fMvsm vulmyxfhSqluhWAhH xflzomQ hAvqamfM xafSSyxqovqaAoBqHWlmhvvAS/SAhH ,mxAqSm wmsAH fhoU32 4qafzmAhclmauxAhS uhvsm oAaWma SAlzom1Rsm lmAhAWm fMvsm SmomxvmH zAavuxuzAhvSw ASV:1LOGehuvmHEvAvmS= AhHVJ16O GpsuhA=1Rsm suWsmalmAh AWmMfa vsm e1E1SAlzom wAS AamSqovfM% amvqahuhWSvqHmhvS G:Ofa foHma=1Rsm lmHuAhAWm Mfa,fvs

WafqzS wASVJ1

MOPBqdnF-RFR

coozAavuxuzAhvSvff/A,AvvmaUfMxamAvu-uvUvmSvS1nfavsuSSvqHUCwmMfxqSmHfhHaAwuhWSfM vsammWmflmvauxSsAzmS1gAavuxuzAhvSwmamuhSvaqxvmHvfHaAwzuxvqamSwuvsvsmvuvomSRauAhWomC dmxvAhWomC AhHpuaxom1 V pfllfhzoAxm SvulqouSqxs ASvsmSm Aoofw MfawuHm -AauAvufhuh amSzfhSmSCvsAvuSCMfa,fvshfhxamAvu-mAhHxamAvu-mamSzfhSmS1IhxfhvaASvCvsmqSmfMqhqSqAo Svulqou uSou/ moUvfamSqovuh qhqSqAozuxvqamS ,mxAqSmfM AoAx/ fMmSvA,ouSsmHC xfh- mhvufhAo hfvufhS A,fqvsf wSqxsSvulqouluWsv ,mamzamSmhvmH Gm1W1Cvsm HaAwuhWS fMA X&fWomvMfa fM Xvsm qhu-maSm,mMfamvsmjuW jAhWM=1PqHWmSF aAvuhWSfM SqxszuxvqamS vmhHvf ,mzfSuvu-moU S/mwmHGu1m1Cvf wAaH xamAvu-m=1nqavsmalfamCvsm SmomxvmHWmflmvauxSsAzmSSsfqoH,mamoA y vu-moUSuluoAauh lmAhuhWAhH AMMmxvu -m amSzfhSmAxafSS xqovqamS1 gaufa amSmAaxsG)AaauhWvfhC J83L=sAS Ssfwh vsAvxamAvu -uvUvmSvSxfamSAam uhMoqmhxmH,U mQzouxuvuhSvaqxvufhSvfX,mxamAvu-m1MRfmhSqamvsAvxafSSyxqovqaAoxflzAauSfhSwmamhfvxfh y MfqhHmH ,UvmSvuhW xfhHuvufhSCsAoM fMvsm zAavuxuzAhvSwmam aAhHfloUASSuWhmH vfA $  xfhHuvufhCwsmamASvsmfvsmasAoMwmamASSuWhmHvfAxfhHuvufhGu1m1ChfmQzouxuv am7qmSv Mfa,muhW xamAvu- m=1RsmSzmxuMuxuhSvaqxvufhMfavsm ,myxamAvu- mxfhHuvufhwASC XbaAwuhWpamAvu-moUTRsuSvAS/uh-fo-mSHaAwuhWxamAvu-moU1KmwAhvUfqvfxamAvmHaAwuhWS vsAv AamsuWsoU xamAvu- mCulAWuhAvu-m1RsAv uSCzomASmxamAvmHaAwuhWSvsAvAam,fvs fauWuhAo Ghf-moCqhxfllfh=AhHAoSfAzzafzauAvmGAavuSvuxAooUmMMmxvu-m=1MRsmuhSvaqxvufhMfavsmSvAh y HAaH xfhHuvufhw ASCXDuSqAoIlAWmaUT RsuSvAS/uh- fo-mS HaAwuhW -uSqAoulAWmS uhamSzfhSm vf -ma,AoSvulqou1K mw AhvUfqvflA/ mHaAwuhWSvsAv UfqzmaSfhAooU MuhH uhvquvu-moUfa Sq, y Bmxvu-moUAzzmAouhWfa]auWsvFvfUfq1MRsmzAavuxuzAhvSwmamvfoHvsmUsAHJOluhqvmSMfaASmv fM muWsvHaA wuhWSGfhoUvsmvsamm WmflmvauxSsAzmS Aamm QAluhmHuh vsuSSvqHU=1 psmh mvAo1 ;petRed4 cibpd4cRIDIR( J3L at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

OPFqdnRUp MOPBqdnR

4Axs HaAwuhWMaflvsm SmomxvmHzAavuxuzAhvS wAS amlf- mHMafl uvSfauWuhAozAx/mv AhH

zASvmHfhvfASmzAaAvm2yuhxs,ULyuhxsuhHmQxAaH14AxsfMvsmSmV82fauWuhAoHaAwuhWSwAS m-AoqAvmHuhpsuhA ,UmuWsv psuhmSmBqHWmS GMfqalAom AhHMfqa MmlAom=AhH uhvsm ehuvmH EvAvmS,USuQ4qafzmAhclmauxAhBqHWmSGvwflAomAhHMfqaMmlAom=1cooBqHWmSwmamqhHma y WaAHqAvm SvqHmhvSlABfauhW uhSfxuAo SxumhxmSwsf sAHsAH ouvvomfa hfMfalAo AavvaAuhuhW fvsma vsAhwsAv uSuh vsmam WqoAaSxsffo xqaauxqoql1K mamxaquvmHqhHmaWaAHqAvm SvqHmhvSAS BqHWmS MfaamASfhS fMmxfhflU AhH,mxAqSm zam-ufqS amSmAaxsGclA,uomC J88%9Evmah,ma W. tq,AavC J88L=sAS Ssfwh vsAvzmmaSzaf-uHm amouA,omAhH -AouH BqHWlmhvS1 eSuhW ALyzfuhv SxAomCvsm BqHWmSaAvmH AooHaA wuhWSAofhW MfqaHulmhSufhST xamAvu-uvU C qhu7qmhmSSC vmxshuxAo7qAouvU CAhHou/uhW1RsmSm HulmhSufhSwmam AHAzvmHMafl clA,uom GJ88%=1nfavsm#AhH* HulmhSufhSCBqHWmSwmamuhSvaqxvmHvfqSmvsmuafwhSq,y Bmxvu-mHmMuhuvufh fMxamAvu-uvUAhH amoUfh vsmuaSq,Bmxvu-m amAxvufhvf vsmHaA wuhWCamSzmx y vu-moU1(wASHmMuhmHASvsmHmWammvfwsuxsvsmHaAwuhWSsfwmHAhf-moamzamSmhy vAvufh1 #wASHmM uhmHASvsmHm Wammvf wsuxsvsm HaAwuhWHmlfhSvaAvmH vmxshuxAoAavuSvuxA,uouvU1cooBqHWmSaAvmHvsmHaAwuhWSuhHmzmhHmhvoU1RfA-fuHfaHmamMMmxvSC mAxs BqHWmSsqM MomHvsmHaAwuhWS ,mMfamAhH AMvmasmfaSsm BqHWmHAoo vsmHaA wuhWSfM AzAa y vuxqoAaSsAzm1RsmfaHmafMBqHWuhWHaAwuhWSfMvsmvsammSsAzmSwASAoSfaAhHflu&mHAxafSS vsmBqHWmS1nfamQAlzomCfhmBqHWmluWsvsA-mBqHWmHvauAhWomSMuaSvCMfoofwmH,UxuaxomSCAhH vsmh amxvAhWomS9wsmamAS AhfvsmaBqHWm luWsvsA -m BqHWmHHaA wuhWSuhvsmfaHmafMxuaxomSC vauAhWomSC AhHamxvAhWomS1 jmMfamSsqM MouhWAhH BqHWuhWvsmHaAwuhWS fMA zAavuxqoAaSsAzmC BqHWmSwmamuhSvaqxvmHvfoff/vsafqWsvsmwsfomSvAx/fMHaAwuhWSvfWmvAMmmoMfavsmaAhWm fM7qAouvUAhHxfhvmhvfMHaAwuhWS1PqHWmSwmam/mzv,ouhHvfvsmxqovqaAofauWuhfMvsmHaAwy uhWSC AovsfqWs: fMvsm V82HaA wuhWSxfhvAuhmH 4hWouSsw faHSAhHAhfvsma: xfhvAuhmHpsuy hmSm xsAaAxvmaSvsAv luWsvsA -m Wu-mhAwAU vsmxqovqaAouHmhvuvUfMvsmzmaSfh wsfHamwvsm zuxvqamS1IhMAxvCJHaAwuhWMmAvqauhWAh4hWouSswfaHwASlAHm,UApsuhmSm1chAHHuvufhAo HaAwuhWsAH Ahml,mHHmH psuhmSmxsAaAxvma vsAvlAU falAU hfvsA -m ,mmhf, -ufqSvf Ah

A-maAWmclmauxAhBqHWm1

JUMqdn UpUwb-JFqt- p-PFAO-R

nuhAooUCmAxs HaAwuhW wASxfHmH,U vwfuhHmzmhHmhvxfHmaS GwsfHuH hfvzAavuxuzAvm uh vsm zam-ufqSoUHmSxau,mHBqHWuhW vAS/=AxxfaHuhW vfSm -mh xAvmWfaumS fMvsmlAvux xfhvmhvS GSmm vsmAzzmhHuQ=1 RsmxfHuhW xAvmWfaumS wmamHm -mofzmHAMvmaA WafqzfM qhHmaWaAHqAvm amSmAaxs ASSuSvAhvSGuhxoqHuhW 4qafzmAhCcMauxAhC cSuAhCAhH )uSzAhuxclmauxAhS= mQAl y uhmH SAlzomSfM vsmHaA wuhWS1coo xfHuhWwASHfhm uhvsm ehuvmHEvAvmS1 RsmSuQxfHmaS uhxoqHmH vwf4qafzmAhclmauxAhSC vwf cSuAhclmauxAhSC fhmcMauxAhclmauxAhCAhH fhm )uSzAhuxclmauxAhCAoofMwsflsAHouvvomfahfMfalAoAavvaAuhuhW1RsmuhvmaxfHmaamouA,uouvU G/AzzA= wAS13:Mfa vauAhWomSC132 MfaamxvAhWomSC AhH138 MfaxuaxomS1

O-RALFR

qdF-ObAMn- PnO--S-dFBqFeqd-P JeJAL FAO- Rfm QAluhmwsmvsmavsmamAam xafSSyxqovqaAoSuluoAauvumS AhHHuM MmamhxmSuh vsmBqHWlmhv fM xamAvu-uvUCwmMuaSv hmmHvf mSvA,ouSsuhvmaBqHWmxfhSuSvmhxU wuvsuhmAxs xqovqam1R A,omJ

J3% Predictrn pdrEEypetRedctgE(p)rtrk(

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from showsthe interjudgeagreement calculatedas Cronbach"s alpha.Clearly ,there wasahigh levelofagreement betweenjudges withineach culturein theirperceptions ofv ariationsin the creativityofdra wings.Similarly ,judgeswithineach cultureagreedonthe lev elsof uniqueness,technicalquality,andliking.Furthermore,thethreedrawingshadhighinteritem consistency(seethebottompanelofTable1).Inotherwords,fromtheperspectiveofjudges who didnot know theidentityofthe participants,indi vidualswho drew acreati ve drawing foronegeometricshapewereverylikelytodrawacreativeoneforanothergeometricshape. Thisfindingindicatesthattherearereliableindividualdifferencesindrawingcreativityand ability onthe presente xperimentaltask.

PreddiPctncrgtghryyEyHn 7H,cNhEyHn

One ofthe centralquestions ofthis studyis whetherpeople fromdif ferentcultures agree intheirjudgmentofthecreativityofdrawings.Giventhewithin-cultureconsistencyinjudg - ment,wecannowexaminecross-culturalagreement.Table2showsthecorrelationsbetween EuropeanAmericanandChinesejudges.Cross-culturalagreementwasremarkablyhighand suggests thatthere wereno significant culturalbiases. (Recallthatthedra wingswere made bypersonsfromtwodifferentcultures.)Tofurtherillustratethelevelofcross-culturalagree - ment andto examine whethersuchagreementis limitedto aparticular rangeof creativity (e.g.,drawingsatthehighendofthescale),weplottedthejudgmentscoresofChinesejudges againstthose ofEuropean Americanjudges. AsFigure 1clearly shows, highagreement betweenthetwogroupsofjudgesoccurredacrossthewholerangeofcreativity.Figure1also showsthe regression equationsforratingsby Chinesejudges aspredicted byratings by

Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 177

ngwty b

7F;C-Jl)BC xF)7F;C-";Cs rCK"xI"K";2d;x;"=;"W= 8P-oFIxWT1 =xK5Tx=6

( " 

Interjudge reliabilityby item

Triangle

Creativity.96.96

Uniqueness.96.97

Technicalquality .90.88

Liking.84.85

Rectangle

Creativity.98.95

Uniqueness.97.96

Technicalquality .92.88

Liking.87.83

Circle

Creativity.96.94

Uniqueness.97.95

Technicalquality .87.91

Liking.83.87

Interitem reliability

Creativity.91.92

Uniqueness.90.91

Technicalquality .76.82

Liking.84.85

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from EuropeanAmericanjudges.TheYinterceptsforallfourequationswerepositive,indicating that Chinesejudges ona verage appearedtojudgethedrawings morepositi vely .The inter - cepts differedsignificantly from0forcreati vity, uniqueness,and technicalquality ,withts rangingfrom3.86to10.75,ps<.001;butonlymarginallyforliking,t=1.90,p=.06.Inother words,although therew asa highlevel ofagreement aboutthe relativecreativity,technical quality,uniqueness,andlikingofthedrawings,EuropeanAmericanandChinesejudgesdif - fered significantlyinthe absolutescores theyassignedto thesedra wings. Finally,weexaminedwithin-culturecorrelationsbetweenratingsofcreativityandoflik - ing. Resultssho wedthatforboth groups,ho wmuch thejudges liked adrawingw ashighly correlated withho wcreative theyratedittobe, r= .95for bothcultures.
  & # #  #
 !
 ## ! -   Because judgmentsof creativity werereliablebothwithin andacross culturesin this study,wecannowexaminewhetherthereareculturaldifferencesinthelevelofcreativityof drawings.Itispossiblethatjudgesfrombothculturescandifferentiatebetweencreativeand noncreativedrawingsproducedbytheculturesbutthatjudgessystematicallyevaluatedraw- ingsmadeinonecultureaslowerincreativity.Table3showsthemeansandstandarddevia- tions ofcreati vityratings,alongwith associatedFstatistics basedon two-w ay(Culture InstructionCondition)ANOVAs.Preliminaryanalysesdidnotrevealanysignificantgender differences,so datawere notpresented bygender .As isob viousfrom examinationof Table3,thereweresignificanteffectsofinstructioncondition-asmightbeexpected,draw - ingsdoneunderbe-creativeinstructionswereratedhigherincreativity,buttherewerenosig - nificantculturaldifferencesorCultureInstructioninteractions.AlsoobviousfromTable3 are thegenerally higherjudgment scoresby Chinesejudges thanby EuropeanAmerican judges asmentioned inthe abov ediscussions abouttheregressionintercepts. The lackof asignif icantinteraction betweencultureandinstruction conditionindicates that thetw oconditionsyieldedsimilar resultsacross cultures.Ho wev er, itemanalyses revealedsignificant differencesinv arianceandresponsedistrib utionsbetween thestandard and be-creativeconditions.Drawings producedin thebecreativ econdition showed greater varianceand morenormal distribution thanthose producedinthestandard condition. 3 The former arethus betterf ittedfor conventionalstatistical analyses. !# &  )'#
 #&# #&
#  # ! -   The findingthattw ogroups withsubstantiallydifferent historiesand culturalv aluesdif - fered littlein thecreation ande valuation ofdra wingssupportstheexistenceof etic,or transcultural, aspectsof drawing creativity.W ethenexploredthethematic featuresthat

178 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

 )# 
3247)3<4 #;4 2441
247' 157

TriangleRectangleCircleTotal

Creativity.93.94.95.97

Uniqueness.96.94.95.97

Technicalquality .88.86.86.93

Liking.84.87.89.93

NOTE:All correlationswere significant atp< .001.

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from definecreativedrawings.Alldrawingswerecodedaccordingtosevencategoriesofthematic contents. Figure2 shows themeancreativity ratingsof alljudges foreachcategory ofthe - matic contents.Dra wingsthatinv olved analternative(nongeometric)interpretation(e.g.,a "circle"offriends,arelationship"triangle")oranusualperspectiveofthegeometricshapes that canonly bepartially seenin thedra wing,were judgedto bethe mostcreative, followed by drawingsthatsho wedthe geometricshapesinconcrete contexts (e.g.,triangles inEgyp - tian pyramids).Drawings thatshoweddecorated geometricshapes, multiplegeometric shapes, andsimple examples ofreal-lifegeometricshapes (e.g.,the sunas acircle) were judged tobe moderatelycreati ve . ANOVAsshowedthatthemeancreativityratingsofthesevencategoriesofdrawingsdif - fered significantly,F(6, 286)= 334.06,p< .001.Post hocSchef fécontrasts revealedthe

Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 179

&25$9 33 37 ='154371:
247 5247371:#;4 247 at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

FPwL- C

S,c") 92K/:)/c"HcvH H,(Kc/Kl")8 c"HP))lgKc/,HPR/c/K)/Kg) l6b mHjh,"/Rglv,)   +)    +) " 0%78'B1

" 5 " 5  

 (  5">8EE 6D8??7<8@E 6>8D97>8ED 6D8?D7<8=> 6>8DE7D8E: AE8DAZD88@A 6D8@:7<8?? 6D8?>7>89? 6D8997<8@? 6D8?>7D8>? :<8DEZD8DA    ""  5">8=E 6>8>E7A8D= 6>8>E7>8E= 6D8?97<8@= 6>8>A7D8:> A=8:DZD8DE  5">89< 6D8@E7<8?= 6D8?:7>8=@ 6D89?7<8@: 6D8?:7D889< 6D8:A7<8A? 6D8=?7>899 6D8E>7<8>? 6D8=97D8:> 8D?  5">8@< 6D8:97<8E> 6D8E?7>89? 6D8:<7<8A: 6D8=E7D89@ A>8:9ZD8:E .   5"<8>= 6D8E=7<8?E 6D89:7<8>E 6D8ED7<89D 6D89:7D8?@ <=8>9ZD8@A  5">8?< 6D8:@7<89A 6D8=<7>8?> 6D8:?7<8E= 6D8=>7D8=9 :>8E?ZD8:= , N& 

B N

"8 Z P 8DD>8 >@D at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from followingsignif icantdifferences:Cate goryAdrawings werejudgedtobe lesscreati vethan alltheothercategoriesofdrawings( p s<.001);CategoryBdrawingswerelesscreativethan thoseinCategoriesD,E,F,andG( p s<.01);andCategoryCdrawingswerelesscreativethan thoseinCategoriesFandG( p s<.01).Onereasonforalackofsignificantdifferencesamong CategoriesD, E,F ,and Gwasthe smallsample sizeof thesecategories. It isalso worth notingthatthemore creativ edra wingswere typicallymade byfewerpar - ticipants(seeFigure2forthefrequencyofdrawingsforeachcategory),afindingconsistent withtheuseoforiginalityscoresasanindicatorofcreativity.Readersmaywanttocodetheir owndra wingswithdueattention topossible biases.Figure 3sho wstw oe xamplesof highly rated drawingsforeach geometricshape producedby participantsin thisstudy . ! 
  Researchers havelongbeenconcerned aboutthe potentialproblems inv olved incross- cultural comparisonsof testsof mentalabilities (Greenfield, 1997).One ofthe majorcon - cernsiswhetherthereis"universalagreementonthevalueormeritofparticularresponsesto particular questions"(Greenf ield,1997,p.1116). Few studiesha ve beencarriedoutto address suchconcerns. Inthis studyof creativity indra wing,we assessedtheagreement

Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 181

&259 6 57=
32 623:'1543= !<2457 :
11
3527 at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from between EuropeanAmericans andChinese onthe meritof particulardra wings.F ollowing the procedureof attaininga deriv edetic (i.e.,developingatranscultural constructthrough examinationof thatconstruct fromeach culture"s perspectiv e[Berry ,1989]),wee xtended Amabile"s(1983, 1996)Consensual AssessmentT echniqueto cross-culturalresearch.

182 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

z"Bl-Cp3 gdxs5KC o%m"BTK2 rx;C)N-xV"FB= %o- yxWThCosC;-"W dTx5C at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from Wecall attentionto sev eralimportant conclusions.Notably,EuropeanAmericanand Chi- nese judgese xhibitedstrikingsimilarityin theire valuation ofcreati vityon thedrawingtasks weused.GiventhegreatdifferencesbetweenChineseandAmericancultures,thenear-perfect correlation betweenEuropean Americanand Chinesejudges countersthe beliefthat all judgments ofcreati vityarenecessarilybound byculture (Amabile,1996). Ifthe findings of thisstudyshouldemergeinotherdomainsofcreativity(suchasverbalcreativity)andacross other culturalgroups, wecan ev entuallyestablish theexistenceofeticor transcultural aspects increati vitythatallow formeaningful cross-culturalcomparisonsofcreati vity. The highle velofcross-culturalagreementconcerning lev elof creativity indicatesthat there wereno significant culturalbiasesinjudging creativity ofdra wings.On thesurf ace, this findingappearsto beinconsistent withthe existing literatureon ethnocentricbiases in creativityjudgment(Kasof,1999).Researcherstypicallyhavefoundthatjudgesevaluatein- group creationsmore positiv elythantheyev aluateout-group creations(e.g.,Griswold,

1987;alsoseeGreenwald&Schuh,1994).Thereareseveralpossibleexplanationsforthese

discrepant findings.First,unlik ein mostpreviousstudies, thecultural identitiesof thecre - atorsinthisstudywereunknowntothejudges.Thisfindingsuggeststhatethnocentricbiases arenotevidentorareminimizedwhentheculturaloriginofthecreatorisunknown.Perhaps muchofthepreviouslyreportedethnocentricbiasesincreativityresearchcanbeattributedto theknowledgeofcreator"sethnicity. 4

Second,drawingsofgeometricshapes-thetasksused

in thisstudy-may begenerally familiar inboth cultures,whereassomeof theresearch on ethnocentrism increati vityjudgmentfocuseson creativ eproducts thatare morefamiliarin somegroupsthanothers(e.g.,rapmusicismorefamiliartoAfricanAmericansthantoEuro- pean Americansand toAmericans ingeneral thanto Chinese). 5

A differenceinf amiliarity

might introducedif ferencesinjudgment.Future researchshould addressthese possibilities and determinethe conditionsunder whichcreati ve productscan bejudgedcross-culturally with minimalbiases. Itisalsoworthnotingthattherewasamodestbutsignificantdifferenceinthecriteriathe ChineseandEuropeanAmericanjudgesusedwhenjudgingthedrawingsonthefourdimen- sions wemeasured. Onepossible explanation stemsfrom differencesintheir lev elof self- serving andself-ef facingbiases.Chineseaswell asother EastAsians hav ebeen foundto showalowerlevelofself-servingbiasesbutahigherlevelofself-effacingbiasesthanWest - erners(e.g.,Bond,1991;Heine&Lehman,1997).Becausejudgeswithself-effacingbiases arelikelytothinkotherstobebetterthanthemselves,theywouldlikelyviewthedrawingsby others tobe morecreati ve, technicallyskilled,anduniqueintheir ideas.Judges withself- servingbiaseswoulddotheopposite.Althoughtheinstructionsformakingjudgmentswere specificabout usingthe currentset ofdra wingsas aframe ofreference, itispossiblethat someculturaltendenciesinself-servingorself-effacingbiasesmighthaveshiftedthecriteria of judgment.Future researchis neededto furthertest thish ypothesis. Interestingly,wefoundthatbothEuropeanAmericanandChinesejudgeslikeddrawings thattheyandothersratedasbeingcreative.ThisfindingisconsistentwiththatofAmabile"s (1983,p.44)studyofchildren"scollagesasjudgedbyartist-judges.Thecorrelationbetween liking andcreati vitywas.72. Thisisnotsurprising, becausecreati vityis commonlydef ined as involvingapositiv ee valuation(seeKasof,1995).What isnewinourf indingis thatthe association betweenliking andcreati vityw asequallystrongfor bothculturalgroups.This findingofculturalsimilarityinattitudestowardcreativityappearstocontradictsomediscus - sions aboutv ariationsinculturalv aluesof creativity (e.g.,Lubart,1998;Ludwig, 1992). Such discussionstypically contrastindi vidualistsocieties" (suchastheUnited States) emphasis onthe value ofbeinguniqueand creativ ewith collectivist cultures"(such asthe

Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 183

7at7UN?V7.:L?0ORN?:7?RV?NL7on7&une7)1R7"()Bjcc/sagepub/comOownloaded7from7

Chinese)emphasisonthevaluesofconformityandtradition.Empiricaldata,however,have sometimescontradictedthisassumption.UsingSchwartz"s(1994)valuescales,twoseparate studies (Schwartz,1994;T riandis,McCusk er,&Hui, 1990)foundthatChinesevalued cre - ativitymore highlythan didAmericans. Similarly, ina studyof preferencesinfriendships, GoodwinandTang(1991)foundthatChinesestresscreativityasapreferredcharacteristicto a greatere xtentthantheirBritish counterparts.It shouldbe noted,ho wev er, thatour finding should notbe ov erinterpretedduetothelimitedmeasures ofattitudes tow ardcreati vityand the extremelyhighcorrelations betweenthe ratingsof likingand creativity . The twoculturalgroups didnot differ intheir meanle velofcreati vityunder eitherthe standard orthe be-creativ econditions.Thatis,instructioncondition didnot systematically bias cross-culturalcomparisons. Itappears tobe justified, therefore,to recommendthe be- creativeconditionforfutureresearch,fortworeasons.First,datacollectedunderthatcondi - tionshowedmorenormaldistributions,anadvantagewhenresearchersuseconventionalsta - tisticalanalyses.Second,asisthecaseformostabilityandintelligencetests,thebe-creative condition ensuresthat thetest takers area wareofthe generalcriteria forevaluatingtheir responses(i.e.,whethertheresponsesarecorrectinthecaseofintelligencetestsandwhether theyarenovelandappropriateinthecaseofcreativitytests[Harrington,1975]).Participants" understandingoftaskdemandsincreasesthelikelihoodoftheirperforminginamannerthat reflects theirpotential. Finally,se verallimitationsofthisstudy shouldbe noted.First, becausewe gathered data fromonlyChinaandtheUnitedStates,howeverdifferenttheyarefromeachother,itremains tobeestablishedwhetherourfindingsofcross-culturalagreementinjudgmentgeneralizeto other cultures.Second, becausethis studyused judgmentsof onlythree kindsof creations (drawingsmade inresponse tothe namesof geometricshapes), itis unknown whetherour results willgeneralize tojudgments ofother kindsof creations.Finally ,because wedid not measurethelevelofarttrainingoftheparticipants,wewereunabletoincludethatimportant variableas aco variate fortheanalysesofculturaldif ferencesin drawing creativity .Each of these limitationsshould beaddressed infuture research. gAAyHN7R nTCsx;"W Po)"FBo% N-xV"FB= 

A. Simple,straightforw ard,ortypicalshapes

B. Decoratedor three-dimensionalshapes

C. Multipleshapes, embeddedor arranged

D. Simpleb utmeaningfulshapes

E. Theshape inconcrete context

F.Reflections ofthe shape,unique perspectiv es

G. Theshape inabstract context

184 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from dUF-R

J1 IvSsfqoH ,mzfuhvmH fqvvsAv wmAam MfxqSuhWfh amSmAaxsvsAv HmAoSwuvs xafSSyxqovqaAoxflzAauSfhS1 Eflm

SvqHumS Gm1W1CEulfhvfhC J866CJ883= sA- mqSmH suSvfauxAoHAvAMaflHuMMmamhvxqovqamS vfvmSv AWmhmaAo vsmfaUC

wsmamASfvsmaSGm1W1C"sAommMAC4aHfSC.cSsauACJ88%CJ883=sA-mmQAluhmHuhHuWmhfqSuSSqmSA,fqvxamAvu-uvUuhA

SuhWom xqovqam1imuvsma fMvsmSm vwf vUzmSfM amSmAaxsuh-fo- mSHuamxv xflzAauSfhSfM xamAvu-uvU GzafHqxvSfazaf

y xmSSmS= AxafSSxqovqamS1 V1EflmamAHmaSluWsvwuSsvfSzmhHqzvfAluhqvmAhHAsAoMfhvsmMfoofwuhWvAS/,mMfamzafxmmHuhWwuvsvsm

amlAuhHma fMvsm AavuxomTgomASm lA/m AHaA wuhWvsAvuSsuWsoU xamAvu- mAhHulAWuhAvu- mwuvs vsmvuvom XRauAhWom1 M

:1tm-mhmFSvmSvfMm7qAouvUfM-AauAhxmSam-mAomHSuWhuMuxAhvHuMMmamhxmSuh-AauAhxmMfavmxshuxAo7qAouvUAhHou/ y uhW,mvwmmhvsmvwfxfhHuvufhSC4SGJC8%=N21LJvf616%CSP1OL1RsmHuMMmamhxmSuhaAvuhWSfMxamAvu-uvUAhHqhu7qmy

hmSS wmamhfv SvAvuSvuxAooUSuWhuM uxAhvC4SGJC 8%=N J1J2vf V1L2CS ^1JO1 E/m whmSSMfavsmxfhHuvufh wAS

J13V GxamAvu-uvU=CJ1%6Gqhu7qmhmSS=C J1:%GvmxshuxAo 7qAouvU=CAhH J1%:Gou/uhW=C wsmamO uhHuxAvmShf S/m whmSSAhH

J1LO faQJ1LO uSxfhSuHmamH vsmxqvfM Mzfuhv MfaAxxmzvA,om hfalAouvU1IhxfhvaASvC vsmS/ mwhmSS Mfavsm $ 

xfhHuvufhwASQO1L%GxamAvu-uvU=CQO1%VGqhu7qmhmSS=CO1JJGvmxshuxAo7qAouvU=CAhHQO1V:Gou/uhW=1EuluoAaoUCvsmSvA

y

vuSvuxS Mfa/qavfSuS uhHuxAvmHA lfamhfalAo HuSvau,qvufh Mfavsm ,myxamAvu- mxfhHuvufh1Rsm/qavfSuS Mfavsm SvAhHAaH

xfhHuvufhwASJ1L%GxamAvu-uvU=CJ1:LGqhu7qmhmSS=CO182GvmxshuxAo7qAouvU=CAhHJ1%LGou/uhW=9AhHvsmxfaamSzfhHuhW

SvAvuSvuxS Mfavsm ,mxamAvu -m xfhHuvufhwmamQJ1OLCQO18%CQJ1OJCAhH QO16%1

21IhMAxvCSvqHumSvsAvsA-msmoHxfhSvAhvvsmf,Bmxvu-mxsAaAxvmauSvuxSfMfauWuhAozafHqxvSwsuommQzmaulmhvAooU

lAhuzqoAvuhWvsmxamAvfaFSAzzAamhvWafqzlml,maSsuzsA-mxomAaoUSsfwhvsAvmvshfxmhvaux,uASmSwmamAamSqovfM vsm /hfwomHWmfMvsm xamAvfaFS Wafqzlml,maSsuz GjoA/m.NfqvfhC J8%V9jaf whCpfoouhSC .ExsluHvCJ8669 bqSvuh .bA -uSCJ83O9nmaWqSfh ." moomUCJ8%29 naumHCJ88%9 kmaAaH.)fUvCJ8329tfhWCEzmAaSC. NAhSvmAHC

J8829 KfaxsmoCtuhHC. "AqMlAhCJ83L=1

L1im-mavsmomSSCuMASmvfMomSSqhu-maSAo-ma,AoSvulqouwmamqSmHCvsmamwfqoHou/moU,mlfamxqovqaAooUfaumhvmH HaAwuhWS1nfamQAlzomCwsmhAS/mHvfxamAvmSvfaumSA,fqvvsmAH-mhvqamSfMAhAhulAoCpsuhmSmxsuoHamhwmamlfam

ou/moUvf MmAvqamHaAWfhS AhHzAhHASC AhHomSS ou/moU vfMmAvqam qhuxfahSAhH xfqWAaSC vsAhwmampAhAHuAhxsuoHamh

G)Aa-mUCroouoACjAQvmaC .kqfC J883=1pqovqaAoHuMMmamhxmS uhvsm f,Bmxvu- mxfhvmhv fMfauWuhAo zafHqxvSlAUMqhxy

vufh ASA ,ASuSfM Wafqzy,ASmHHuM MmamhxmSuh m- AoqAvufhfMfauWuhAozafHqxvS GSmmifvm 2=1

O-p-O-dJ-R

clA,uomC R1N1GJ86:=1 EfxuAozSUxsfofWU fMxamAvu -uvUTc xflzfhmhvuAoxfhxmzvqAou&Avufh1 >
 #

 "
#  #C;C :L3y:331 clA,uomC R1N1GJ88%=1 #  1jfqoHmaC prTKmSv-umw 1

jAooC r141C .R faaAhxmC41 g1GJ836=1pqovqam AhHvmhHmhxumS vfHaAwf,BmxvS uhuhvmahAo -uSqAozmaSzmxvu -m 1


 % "*

C C JO3JyJO3L1

jAaafhCn1GJ8L:=1pflzomQuvUySulzouxuvUASAzmaSfhAouvUHulmhSufh1> $"
#  #C ?

C J%:yJ3V1

jmaoUhmC b141 GJ83%=1EuluoAauvU AhHzamMmamhxm BqHWlmhvSfM IhHuAhAhH pAhAHuAhSq,BmxvS mQzfSmH vfK mSvmah

zAuhvuhWS1 >
#  # C88C 2:yLL1

jmaaUCP 1K1GJ868=1 IlzfSmHmvuxSymluxSyHmau-mH mvuxSTRsm fzmaAvufhAou&AvufhfM AxflzmoouhWuHmA1

>
#  #C:C 3VJy3:L1

joA/mCd1 41C. NfqvfhCP1 E1GJ8%V=1 r-mam -AoqAvufh fMf whWafqzS zafHqxvuhuhWafqzxflzmvuvufh1>

$ "
#  #C@C V:3yV:61 jfhHC N1)1 GJ88J=15#   A   #  # 1 )fhW" fhWTrQMfaHehu- maSuvUgamSS1 jafwhCP1b1CpfoouhSCd1t1C.ExsluHvCk1K1GJ866=1EmoMymSvmmlAhHHuamxv-maSqSuhHuamxvMfalSfMSmoMymhsAhxm y lmhv1>
 #"
#  # C;;C 22Ly2L:1 psuoHCI1t1GJ8%6=1RsmmQzmavSAhHvsm,auHWmfMBqHWlmhvvsAvxafSSmSm-maUxqovqaAoWAz1
#  ##C:CV2y V81 pfQC N1GJ88V=1  2)       1 )f-mCe"T4ao,Aql1 pfQCN1D1CgmaAaACP1C.nAhCS1GJ886=1psuoHamhFSHaAwuhWA,uouvUuhvsme"AhHpsuhA1
#  A   >
#  #  D

C8C J3JyJ6V1

pSu/S&mhvlusAoUuC N1C. kmv&moSCP1 K1 GJ83J=1buSxf -maUyfaumhvmH,msA-ufa AhHvsm fauWuhAouvUfMxamAvu-mzafH

y qxvST cSvqHU wuvsAavuSvS1 >
 #J"
#  # C8BC 23yLV bqSvuhCb1E1C.bA-uSC)1g1GJ83O=14-AoqAvu-m,uASuhWafqzAhHuhHu-uHqAoxflzmvuvufh1>"
#   #C?FC JO:yJO61psmh mvAo1 ;petRed4 cibpd4cRIDIR( J6L at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ferguson,C. K.,& Kelle y, H.H.(1964).Significantfactorsin ov erev aluationof own-group"sproduct. Journalof

Abnormal andSocial Psycholo gy,69, 223-228.

Fried, C.B. (1996).Bad rapfor rap:Bias inreactions tomusic lyrics.Journalof AppliedSocial Psycholo gy,26,

2135-2146.

Gardner,H. (1989).Toopen minds:Chinese cluesto thedilemma ofcontempor aryeducation . NewYork: Basic

Books.

Gerard,H.B.,&Hoyt,M.F.(1974).Distinctivenessofsocialcategorizationandattitudetowardingroupmembers. Journalof Per sonalityandSocialPsychology ,29, 836-842. Goodwin,R.,&Tang,D.(1991).Preferencesforfriendsandcloserelationshipspartners:Across-culturalcompari - son.Journalof SocialPsyc hology ,131, 579-581.

Greenfield,P .M.(1997).Y oucan" ttak eitwithyou: Whyabilityassessments don"tcrosscultures. American Psy-

chologist ,52, 1115-1124. Greenwald,A.G.,&Schuh,E.S.(1994).Anethnicbiasinscientificcitations.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychol- ogy,24, 623-639.

Griswold,W.(1987).Thefabricationofmeaning:LiteraryinterpretationintheUnitedStates,GreatBritain,andthe

WestIndies. American JournalofSociolo gy,92, 1077-1117.

Harrington,D.M.(1975).Effectsofexplicitinstructionsto"becreative"onthepsychologicalmeaningofdivergent

thinking testscores. Journalof Per sonality,43, 434-454.

Harvey,C.B.,Ollila, L.,Baxter ,K .,& Guo,S. Z.(1997).Gender-related andgrade-relateddifferences inwriting

topics inChinese andCanadian children.Journalof Researc handDevelopmentinEducation ,31, 1-6.

Heine, S.J., &Lehman, D.R. (1997).The culturalconstruction ofself-enhancement: Ane xaminationof group-

serving biases.Journalof Per sonalityandSocialPsychology ,72, 1268-1283. Hennessey,B.A.,&Amabile,T.M.(1999).Consensualassessment.InM.A.Runco&S.R.Pritzker(Eds.),Ency- clopedia ofcr eativity(pp. 347-359).San Diego, CA:AcademicPress. Hocevar,D.,&Bachelor,P.(1989).Ataxonomyandcritiqueofmeasurementsusedinthestudyofcreativity.InJ.A. Glover,R.R.Ronning, &C. R.Re ynolds(Eds.), Handbook ofcr eativity(pp. 53-75).Ne wYork:Plenum. Hsu, F.L.K.(1981).Americans andChinese: Passa getodifferences(3rd ed.).Honolulu: Univ ersityofHawaii

Press.

Huntsinger,C. S.,Lia w, F.-R.,Schoeneman,J.,&Ching, W.-D.(1995,March). Culturaldif ferencesinyoungchil-

dren"sdrawing skills .Paper presentedattheBiennial Meetingof theSociety forResearch inChild Dev elop- ment, Indianapolis,IN. Iwao,S.,Child,I.L.,&Garcia,M.(1969).FurtherevidenceofagreementbetweenJapaneseandAmericanesthetic evaluations.Journalof SocialPsyc hology ,78, 11-15.

Jaquish, G.A., &Ripple, R.E. (1984-1985).A life-spande velopmental cross-culturalstudy ofdi ver gentthinking

abilities.International JournalofAging &Human Development ,20, 1-11. Jones,J.,&Shea,J.(1974).Someproblemsinthecomparisonofdivergentthinkingscoresacrosscultures.Austra- lian Psychologist ,9, 47-51.

Kasof, J.(1995). Explainingcreati vity:The attributionalperspectiv e. CreativityResear chJournal,8, 311-366.

Kasof, J.(1999). Attribution andcreativity. InM. A.Runco&S.R.Pritzk er(Eds.), Encyclopedia ofcr eativity

(pp. 147-156).SanDie go,CA: AcademicPress. Khaleefa,O.H.,Erdos,G.,&Ashria,I.H.(1996).CreativityinanindigenousAfro-ArabIslamicculture:Thecase of Sudan.Journalof Creative Behavior,30, 268-282. Khaleefa,O.H.,Erdos,G.,&Ashria,I.H.(1997).TraditionaleducationandcreativityinanAfro-ArabIslamiccul - ture: Thecase ofSudan. Journalof Creative Behavior,31, 201-211.

Long, K.,Spears, R.,& Manstead,A. (1994).The influenceof personaland collectiv eself-esteem onstrate giesof

social differentiation.British JournalofSocial Psycholo gy,33, 313-329. Lubart,T.I.(1999).Creativityacrosscultures.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed.),Handbookofcreativity(pp.339-350).New

York:Cambridge Univ ersityPress.

Ludwig, A.M. (1992).Culture andcreati vity. American JournalofPsyc hotherapy ,46, 454-469. Pine,F.,&Holt,R.R.(1960).Creativityandprimaryprocess:Astudyofadaptiveregression.JournalofAbnormal & SocialPsyc hology,61, 370-379. Raina,M.K.(1999).Cross-culturaldifferences.InM.A.Runco&S.R.Pritzker(Eds.),Encyclopediaofcreativity (pp. 453-464).San Diego, CA:AcademicPress.

Richards, R.,Kinne y,D.K.,Benet,M., Merzel,A. P. (1988).Assessing ev erydaycreati vity:Characteristics ofthe

LifetimeCreativityScalesandvalidationwiththreelargesamples.JournalofPersonality&SocialPsychology, 54
, 476-485 Rudowicz,E.,Lok,D.,&Kitto,J.(1995).UseoftheTorranceTestsofCreativeThinkinginanexploratorystudyof creativityin HongK ongprimary schoolchildren:Across-cultural comparison.International JournalofPsy - chology,30, 417-430. Schwartz,S.H.(1994).Beyondindividualism/collectivism:Newculturaldimensionsofvalues.InU.Kim&H.C. Triandis(Eds.), Individualism andcollectivism: Theory, method,andapplications(pp. 85-119).Thousand

Oaks, CA:Sage.

Segall,M.H.,Lonner,W.J.,&Berry,J.W.(1998).Cross-culturalpsychologyasascholarlydiscipline:Ontheflow -

ering ofculture inbeha vioralresearch. American Psychologist,53, 1101-1110.186 JOURNALOF CROSS-CULTURALPSYCHOLOGY

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Silver,H. R.(1983).Selectiv eaf finities: Connoisseurship,culture,andaestheticchoicein acontemporaryAfrican

community.Ethos,11, 87-126.

Simonton, D.K. (1988).Galtonian genius,Kroeberian configurations, andemulation: Agenerational time-series

analysis ofChinese civilization. Journalof Per sonalityandSocialPsychology ,55, 230-238. Simonton,D.K.(1997).Foreigninfluenceandnationalachievement:TheimpactofopenmilieusonJapanesecivi - lization.Journalof Per sonalityandSocialPsychology ,72, 86-94.

Simonton, D.K. (2000).Creati vity:Cogniti ve,personal,de velopmental,andsocialaspects.American Psycholo-

gist ,55, 151-158.

Sobel, R.S., &Rothenber g,A. (1980).Artisticcreationas stimulatedby superimposedv ersusseparated visual

images.Journalof Per sonality&SocialPsychology ,39, 953-961 Solar,D.,Bruehl,D.,&Kovacs,J.(1970).TheDraw-A-PersonTest:Socialconformityorartisticability?Journalof

Clinical Psychology,26, 524-525

Sternberg,R. J.,& Lubart,T .I. (1995).Defying thecr owd:Cultivatingcreativity ina cultureofconformity .New

York:Free Press.

Sullivan,M(1997).ThemeetingofEasternandWesternart(Revisedandexpandededition).Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress Triandis,H.C.,McCusker,C.,&Hui,C.H.(1990).Multimethodprobesofindividualismandcollectivism.Journal of PersonalityandSocialPsyc hology ,59, 1006-1020.

Welsh,G. S.(1969). Preferencesfor basicgeometric shapesby Americanand Egyptiansubjects. International

Journalof Symbology ,1, 58-66.

Welsh,G. S.(1975). Creativityof intelligence: Apersonalityappr oach .ChapelHill: Univ ersityof NorthCarolina

Press.

Winner,E. (1989).Howcan Chinesechildren drawsowell? Journalof AestheticEducation ,23, 41-63.

Worchel,S., Lind,E. A.,& Kaufman,K. H.(1975). Evaluations ofgroup productsas afunction ofe xpectationsof

group longevity,outcomeofcompetition, andpublicity ofe valuations. Journalof Per sonalityandSocialPsy-

chology,31, 1089-1097. Chuansheng Chen,Ph.D., isan associatepr ofessorof psycholo gyandsocialbehavior atthe Universityof California,Irvine.Hismainresearchinterestiscross-culturaldevelopmentalpsychology.Hehaspublished manyjournalarticlesintheareasofcultureandacademicachievement,adolescentdepressionandmiscon- ductinculturalcontexts,therolesofnonparentaladultsinadolescentdevelopment,anddopaminereceptor

D4 geneandhuman behavior.

JosephKasof,Ph.D.,isalecturerintheDepartmentofPsychologyandSocialBehaviorattheUniversityof California, Irvine.Hehas conductedmany studiesand publishedarticles inthe areas ofcr eativity, sociolinguistics, anden vironmentalpsychology. Amy J.Himsel,M.A., isa doctoral studentin theHuman DevelopmentPh.D.Pr ogr amat theUniver sityof California, Irvine.Hermain resear ch interestsareadultdevelopment,work andfamily,and creativity. Ellen Greenberger,Ph.D.,isaprofessor ofpsyc hology andsocial behaviorattheUniver sityof California, Irvine.She haspublished numerous articleson adolescentandadultde velopment,including theef fectsof adolescent employment,corr elatesofadolescentdepr essionand misconductin culturalcontexts, ther oles ofnonparentaladultsinadolescentdevelopment,andtheeffectsofworkonadults"parentingbehaviorsand mental health. QiDong,Ph.D.,isaprofessorofdevelopmentalpsychologyintheInstituteofDevelopmentalPsychologyat Beijing NormalUniver sity.Hehasawide rang eof resear ch interests,includinginfantmotorde velopment, creativity,socialde velopment,and adolescentpsychopathology .He hascollabor atedwithmanyresearch - ersar oundtheworld. Gui Xue,M.A.,is agr aduatestudent atthe InstituteofDevelopmental Psycholo gyat BeijingNormal Uni -

versity.Hisr esearc hinterestsincludecreativityandsecond languageacquisition. Chen etal. /CULTURE ANDCREATIVITY 187

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on June 18, 2015jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Politique de confidentialité -Privacy policy