Creativity across cultures - UNF Digital Commons (PDF)

UNF Digital Commons UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 2013 Creativity across cultures: A comparison of cognitive creativity to creative achievement between the United States and India Smit Shah University of North Florida This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2013 All Rights Reserved Suggested Citation Shah, Smit, "Creativity across cultures: A comparison of cognitive creativity to creative achievement between the United States and India" (2013). UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 432. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/432  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES: A COMPARISON OF COGNITIVE CREATIVITY AND CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA by Smit S. Shah A thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in General Psychology UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES April, 2013 Unpublished work c Smit S. Shah  Certificate of Approval The thesis of Smit Shah is approved: (Date) __________________________________________ Dr. Dominik Güss ___________ __________________________________________ Dr. Afesa Adams ___________ Accepted for the Psychology Department: __________________________________________ Dr. Michael Toglia Chair ___________ Accepted for the College of Arts and Sciences: __________________________________________ Dr. Barbara Hetrick Dean ___________ Accepted for the University: __________________________________________ Dr. Len Roberson Dean of The Graduate School ___________  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES iii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the people responsible for making this thesis a reality. First I would like to thank my parents who were always supportive of my decision in choosing this topic to study. Without their support this study would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my advisor and mentor Dr. Dominik Güss. His advice, guidance, and insights were invaluable throughout this entire process. A special thank you goes to Dr. Afesa Adams who helped me stay positive and remain on track throughout the whole process. Dr. Nila Shah, family and friend, I would like to thank you for your unceasing efforts in helping me complete my data collection in India. This project could not have been done without you. I would also like to thank members of my lab group, Junior Badibanga and Alex Blandina. The three of us kept each other motivated to finish on time and present quality research. A special thanks to Dr. Michael Toglia for his valuable comments and edits to the thesis.  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES iv Table of Contents Certificate of Approval............................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................................................iv List of Table and Figures .......................................................................................................................................v Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................vi Creativity Across Cultures ....................................................................................................................................1 Creativity......................................................................................................................................................................1 Defining creativity...............................................................................................................................................1 Measuring creativity...........................................................................................................................................3 Culture...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Studies of cultural values..................................................................................................................................4 The culture of India.............................................................................................................................................6 The culture of the United States....................................................................................................................7 Creativity and Culture.............................................................................................................................................8 Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................................11 Methods .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Participants .........................................................................................................................................................12 Instruments.........................................................................................................................................................13 Procedure.............................................................................................................................................................15 Ratings...................................................................................................................................................................16 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................16 Inter-­‐rater reliability.......................................................................................................................................16 Hypothesis 1........................................................................................................................................................16 Hypothesis 2........................................................................................................................................................17 Hypothesis 3........................................................................................................................................................17 Hypothesis 4........................................................................................................................................................19 Hypothesis 5........................................................................................................................................................19 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................20 Limitations...........................................................................................................................................................26 Summary...............................................................................................................................................................29 References.................................................................................................................................................................31 Vita...............................................................................................................................................................................34  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES v List of Table and Figures Table 1. Criterion-­‐referenced abilities .........................................................................................................14 Table 2. Differences in norm-­‐referenced ability scores between the United States and India ..............................................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 1. Mean scores of achievement domains from the CAQ..........................................................20  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES vi Abstract Creativity is a topic that is relevant to everyday life. Research in this area has mainly focused on comparing creativity in work contexts and between Eastern and Western conceptualizations. The current study was designed to measure differences in creativity between students in the United States and India by comparing a measure of cognitive creativity, the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults, to a measure of creative achievement, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. The results from a linear regression showed that the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults was predictive of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire in the United States, but not in India. Results from independent samples t-­‐ tests showed that participants from the United States scored significantly higher on the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults than participants from India. Independent samples t-­‐ tests further showed that participants from India scored significantly higher on originality domain of the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults than participants from the United States. Independent samples t-­‐tests showed there was no significant difference between the two countries in terms of overall creative achievement. However, participants in the United States scored significantly higher in the domain of creative writing, and marginally higher in the domain of music. Participants from India scored significantly higher in the domain of culinary arts. Part of the explanation for the results revolves around the idea that the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults is western-­‐centric test. There is a need for a creativity test that takes into account Eastern conceptualizations of creativity. Based on the results the researcher recommends staying away from overgeneralizing East/West dichotomies, instead shifting the focus towards the uniqueness of individual cultures. Keywords: creativity, culture, achievement, eastern culture, innovation, novelty  Creativity Across Cultures Creativity is a topic that is relevant to everyday life. People use it at work to develop innovative new products, on the road navigating traffic, or even when trying to save money. Human beings have the capacity to be creative or perform creative tasks with novel outputs. Different aspects of creativity are valued by different cultures; Eastern cultures value appropriateness over novelty and vice-­‐versa for Western cultures (Morris & Leung, 2010). A recent study on creativity comparing the United States, a Western culture, and Iran, an Eastern culture, showed that the United States scored significantly higher than Iran on the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (Kharkhurin et al., 2008). Many tests of creativity directly measure novelty or originality as a subscale or aspect of the test, however only some measure appropriateness and often in very indirect ways (Goff & Torrance, 2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults is an example of such a test. If this is the case, then can creativity be accurately measured and related to creative outcomes in Eastern cultures? Would average creativity still be higher in the United States if another Eastern culture were used as a comparison group? Is the conceptualization of East vs. West an overgeneralization or a helpful dichotomy? These are some of the questions addressed in the present study. Creativity Defining creativity In order to study creativity, one must first define the concept. Creativity is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon. The problem lies with attempting to  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 2 define the phenomenon so that it is broad enough to cover other qualities that might fall under it, but specific enough so that it can be readily observed and measured. While there are many definitions for creativity in the field, the following definition was chosen for this study: Creativity can be defined as a quality attributed to a person or a process that frequently produces a novel and appropriate solution to a problem (Mayer, 1999). There are many definitions of creativity in the field, however this particular definition was chosen for two reasons. First, creativity can be attributed to a person or a process that has a product. The person perspective focuses on the personality profiles of creative geniuses compared with those less gifted individuals (Feist, 1998). Creativity is assumed to be a process in which simultaneous activation of different and often unrelated ideas or categories develop a new plane on which original and novel ideas could be generated (Kharkhurin et al., 2008). The product perspective is an examination of when and why certain outputs are creative (Simonton, 2003). Second, the definition signifies the importance of both novelty and appropriateness. The distinction is particularly important when considering how creativity is viewed in other cultures or communities. Although all people may have similar general cognitive capacities for creativity, they are not developed nor exercised uniformly across individuals. Therefore, creativity is a matter of cognitive processes at the individual level as well as social factors that go beyond the individual level. Creativity should not be decontextualized because of this. Creativity takes place within, is constituted and influenced by, and has consequences for a social context (Westwood & Low, 2003). Social context can be as broad as an overall culture of a nation, but it can also be narrow like the socioeconomic status of one’s neighborhood. Either way, one cannot remove the influences of the environment on creativity because the  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 3 process is partly reactionary. It is partly reactionary in the sense that there is generally something in the situation or microenvironment that cues associations. For example, if one takes the same route home from work everyday and is always stuck in traffic, it would be considered creative to think of an alternative route home. This act of creation is simply a reaction to the environment. However, it is also important to note that individual factors such as patience, uncertainty avoidance, and cognitive flexibility can influence creativity as well (De Dreu, 2010). To continue with the traffic example, if one has more patience than others then they will not waste the effort in creatively navigating the traffic. If one were highly avoidant of uncertain situations then they would rather remain in traffic rather than attempt a new route where they would not know the traffic situation. If one were high on cognitive flexibility then they would likely think of multiple alternative routes that they might be able to take. Measuring creativity Most researchers measure creativity through divergent thinking tasks. Divergent thinking is the thought process used to think of multiple solutions instead of one solution (De Dreu, 2010). One of the most widely used tests for creativity is the Torrance Test for Creative Thinking (Ball & Torrance, 1985). In fact, this particular test is so widely used that it has been translated into more than thirty-­‐five languages and has shown longitudinal validity over a fifty-­‐year period (Kim, 2008; Runco et al., 2010). The original Torrance Test for Creative Thinking included a Verbal and a Figural section. Since both these sections often require a considerable amount of time, Torrance suggested that a shortened version would be beneficial. Thus, the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults or ATTA was created. This is the test that will be used to measure creativity in this study. The coding manual for  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 4 the ATTA states that the test is reliable with a KR21 reliability coefficient of .90 (Goff & Torrance, 2002). A test can have construct validity in measuring creativity, however if it does not relate to creative achievements in real life then it would not be considered to have external validity. If there is no external validity then the question of the test’s importance should be raised. Research has shown that the Torrance Test for Creative Thinking is related to both personal and public achievements (Runco et al., 2008). For this study, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire will be used to measure creative achievement. This self-­‐report measure has established predictive validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Carson et al., 2005). This test measures creative achievement in ten domains: visual arts, writing, humor, dance, theater and film, music, invention, scientific design, culinary arts, and architectural design. Culture As mentioned, creativity is a matter of cognitive processes at the individual level as well as social factors. Social factors, such as culture, need to be examined in order to truly understand creativity. Culture can be defined as a dynamic system of rules established by groups in order to ensure their survival. It involves attitudes, beliefs, values, norms and behaviors shared by the group. It is communicated across generations and relatively stable over time, however it has the potential to change (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). Studies of cultural values Hofstede (1980) performed a study comparing cultures scores on four dimensions of cultural values: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance.  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 5 He standardized country scores on a scale of 100 on each dimension. He claimed that greater innovative levels are more likely in countries that are high in individualism and low on power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede’s study focused on cultural-­‐level value dimensions; it was not individually based. This means that the culture as a group tends to share certain values, however individuals can differ amongst them. While these four dimensions are not all-­‐inclusive of the traits that people from different cultures can differ on, they provide an overview as to some of the important differences between cultures. Another researcher in Israel named Shalom Schwartz established another set of cultural values. Schwartz conducted a study with data from forty-­‐nine countries. From his analysis, seven types of values were identified and were structured on three dimensions. The first dimension consists of Conservatism versus Intellectual and Affective Autonomy. Conservatism is the concept of a culture placing an emphasis on the maintenance of the status quo, proprietary, and restraint of actions that might disrupt the solidarity group or the traditional order (Schwartz, 1999). Intellectual Autonomy refers to a cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing own ideas and intellectual directions (Schwartz, 1999). Intellectual Autonomy is most readily linked with creativity. Affective Autonomy refers to a cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursing positive affective experiences (Schwartz, 1999). The second dimension consists of Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism. Hierarchy refers to an emphasis on the legitimacy of unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources (Schwartz, 1999). Egalitarianism refers to an emphasis on transcendence of selfish interests in favor of voluntary commitment in promoting the welfare of others (Schwartz, 1999). The last dimension consists of Mastery versus Harmony. Mastery refers to a  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 6 cultural emphasis on getting ahead through active self-­‐assertion (Schwartz, 1999). This includes such behaviors and motivations as ambition, success, daring and competence. Harmony is a cultural emphasis on fitting harmoniously with the environment (Schwartz, 1999). The culture of India Based on Hofstede’s dimensions, India is a country that is high on power distance (77), low on individualism (48), average on masculinity (56), and medium low on uncertainty avoidance (40) (The Hofstede Center, 2013). Since India is low on individualism, it could be considered collectivistic, which is at the opposite spectrum of individualism. In this sense, because society is looking more for conformity and obedience to the norm, one would expect individual creativity to be lower than countries that are individualistic. However, it is important to keep in mind that creativity is most likely in a normal distribution with a bell curve shape. This means that not everyone is going to be lower or higher than everyone else, however there will be a difference in the means. India’s score on uncertainty avoidance speaks volumes on how the culture could handle creativity. People generally do not feel compelled to take action-­‐initiatives but rather settle into established roles and routines without question (The Hofstede Center, 2013). This would mean that people from India are more likely to use the persistent pathway for creativity over the flexible pathway. Under Schwartz’s cultural values, India is considered to be high on Conservatism and Hierarchy and somewhere in between Harmony and Mastery (Schwartz, 1999). This means that India, as a national culture, tends to try and maintain the status quo, while accepting unequal distributions in power and resources.  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 7 India is a country of many languages. Although Hindi is the official national language, states are allowed to use their own official languages. In the state of Andra Pradesh the official language is Telegu. In the state of Kerela it is Malayalam. In the state of Gujarat, the official language is Gujarati. In 1967, the Official Languages Amendment Act was passed. This act stated that both Hindi and English would be used by the parliament, and the central government would use Hindi to communicate with Hindi-­‐speaking states, and English to communicated to non-­‐Hindi speaking states (Craig, 2013). The interesting aspect about modern language in India is that there is a hybridization of the language. While Hindi is an official language, there is widespread use of Hinglish, a combination of Hindi and English (Gosh & Chaudhuri, 2009). This indicates that while English is widely spoken amongst educated Indians, it is important when working with an Indian population to have materials translated into the official state language. The culture of the United States Based around Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the United States is considered low on power distance (41), high on individualism (91), high on masculinity (62), and medium on uncertainty avoidance (46) (The Hofstede Center, 2013). Individualist societies place value on being different from everyone else. In terms of business, everyone is competing against everyone. People have developed innovative strategies in order to stay in competition. People living in the United States are generally taught to support themselves due to individualistic tendencies of the overall culture. Based on Schwartz’s values, the United States would be considered high in Hierarchy, Mastery, and Affective Autonomy (Schwartz, 1999). This means that the national culture of the United States recognizes and accepts  CREATIVITY ACROSS CULTURES 8 unequal power distributions while at the same time accepting that one can get ahead through self-­‐assertion. Creativity and Culture Lubart (1999) identified four ways that a culture might influence creativity: (a) people from different cultures may have different concepts of creativity; (b) people from different cultures may use different psychological processes when they engage in creative endeavors; (c) language may influence the development of creativity; and (d) environment can either promote or reduce people’s creativity. Three of these have importance to this study; language, however, is not directly examined so it will not be included. There is a distinction between Western and Eastern conceptualizations of creativity in the literature. Morris and Leung (2010) argue that Western norms prioritize originality and novelty over usefulness and appropriateness, whereas Eastern norms prioritize usefulness and appropriateness over originality and novelty. The Western conception of creativity is primarily concerned with innovation and creating new things, whereas the Eastern conception of creativity is more dynamic, involving the reuse and reinterpretation of tradition rather than breaks in the tradition (Lubart, 1999). Research shows that Western concern has increasingly been with tangible outcomes of creativity and assessing creativity in terms of them. Eastern cultures have been less concerned with outcome or product and more with the role of creativity in providing personal fulfillment (Lubart, 1999). It has also been argued that different cultural conceptions of creativity have roots in a culture’s creation myths and religious precepts (Mason, 1988). Eastern views of time,