Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0147

The current studies provide evidence of two distinct implicit theories of creative ideas and so help to resolve the debate over differences in creativity assessments between Chinese and American samples. In three studies using three methodologies (qualitative inductive, cultural consensus modeling, and experimental), we used data from 2,140 participants to reveal 26 domain general cues that can indicate whether a product or process is creative. About 95 percent of the Chinese used a broad range of cues, whereas about 75 percent of the Americans used a narrow range of cues. Members of both cultures found cues such as breakthrough, surprise, and potential to indicate creativity. In contrast, cues such as easy to use, feasible, and for a mass market were indicators of creativity for most Chinese and noncreativity for most Americans. Thus, in addition to domain knowledge, knowledge about creativity itself contributes to creativity assessments. Cross-cultural differences in knowledge about creativity can help explain differences in how members of different cultures assess creativity. These findings have implications for the scholarly conceptual definition of creativity and suggest an array of possibilities for research on creativity and innovation.

Editor’s Comment

Social scientists discovered in this study that people from different cultures assess creativity quite differently. They gathered evidence of how people judge creativity, using a novel cultural consensus methodology and conducting a series of randomized experiments. Their findings showed that Chinese and Americans possess quite distinct implicit theories of creativity. Chinese hold a much broader view of creativity. They judge creativity based on a wider bandwidth of cues. To the Chinese, creativity spans beyond novelty cues to include attributes such as rarity, having mass market appeal, being fun to engage with, and others. By contrast, Americans use a narrower set of cues to define creativity. To the Americans, creativity is judged largely based on novelty cues. We expect this set of findings using the authors’ novel cultural consensus methodology to spark new waves of inquiry and theorizing into the etic and emic dimensions of constructs across cultures. As for practical implications, the discovery that people from different cultures do assess creativity quite differently reveals critical insights into the consumer psyche of the Americans and the Chinese.

Soon Ang, Action Editor

Whiteboard Video Abstract

REFERENCES

  • Amabile T. M. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 997–1013. Google Scholar
  • Amabile T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity.”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
  • Amabile T. M., Barsade S. G., Mueller J. S., & Staw B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367–403. Google Scholar
  • Amabile T., & Mueller J. 2008. Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. Handbook of organizational creativity: 33–64. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  • Anders R., & Batchelder W. H. 2012. Cultural consensus theory for multiple consensus truths. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56: 452–469. Google Scholar
  • Anders R., & Batchelder W. H. 2013. Cultural consensus theory for the ordinal data case. Psychometrika, 80: 1–31. Google Scholar
  • Anderson N., Potočnik K., & Zhou J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297–1333. Google Scholar
  • Atran S., Medin D. L., & Ross N. O. 2005. The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112: 744. Google Scholar
  • Batey M. 2012. The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24: 55–65. Google Scholar
  • Bechtoldt M. N., De Dreu C. K., Nijstad B. A., & Choi H.-S. 2010. Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 622. Google Scholar
  • Benjamini Y., & Yekutieli D. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29: 1165–1188. Google Scholar
  • Borgatti S. P., & Carboni I. 2007. On measuring individual knowledge in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 449–462. Google Scholar
  • Campbell D. T. 1960. Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67: 380–400. Google Scholar
  • Carey S. 2009. The origin of concepts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Chan D. W. 2012. Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth mindset of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. Roeper Review, 34: 224–233. Google Scholar
  • Chiu C.-y., Hong Y.-y., & Dweck C. S. 1997. Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 19. Google Scholar
  • Chiu C.-y., & Kwan L. Y. Y. 2010. Culture and creativity: A process model. Management and Organization Review, 6: 447–461. Google Scholar
  • Choi I., Koo M., & Choi J. A. 2007. Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 691–705. Google Scholar
  • Choi I., Nisbett R. E., & Norenzayan A. 1999. Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47. Google Scholar
  • Chua R. Y. J., Roth Y., & Lemoine J.-F. 2015. The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 189–227. Google Scholar
  • Costa P. T., & McCrae R. R. 1992. The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6: 343–359. Google Scholar
  • Csikszentmihalyi M. 1997. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention: 456. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Google Scholar
  • Csikszentmihalyi M. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 313–335. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • De Dreu C. K. W. 2010. Human creativity: Reflections on the role of culture. Management and Organization Review, 6: 437–446. Google Scholar
  • Detert J. R., & Edmondson A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–488.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Douglas M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Google Scholar
  • Dweck C. S., Chiu C.-y., & Hong Y.-y. 1995. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. Google Scholar
  • Elsbach K. D., & Kramer R. M. 2003. Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 283–301.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Erez M., & Nouri R. 2010. Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6: 351–370. Google Scholar
  • Feist G. J. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 290–309. Google Scholar
  • Filipowicz A. 2006. From positive affect to creativity: The surprising role of surprise. Creativity Research Journal, 18: 141–152. Google Scholar
  • Fleming L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science. Special Issue: Design and Development, 47(1): 117–132. Google Scholar
  • Ford C. M., & Gioia D. A. 2000. Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26: 705–732. Google Scholar
  • Ford C. M., Sharfman M. P., & Dean J. W. 2008. Factors associated with creative strategic decisions. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17: 171–185. Google Scholar
  • Frese M., Teng E., & Wijnen C. J. D. 1999. Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 1139–1155. Google Scholar
  • Gelfand M. J., Raver J.L., Nishii L., Leslie L.M., Lun J., Lim B.C., Duan L., Almaliach A., Ang S., Arnadottir J., Aycan Z., Boehnke K., Boski P., Cabecinhas R., Chan D., Chhokar J., D'Amato A., Ferrer M., Fischlmayr I.C., Fischer R., Fülöp M., Georgas J., Kashima E.S., Kashima Y., Kim K., Lempereur A., Marquez P., Othman R., Overlaet B., Panagiotopoulou P., Peltzer K., Perez-Florizno L.R., Ponomarenko L., Realo A., Schei V., Schmitt M., Smith P.B., Soomro N., Szabo E., Taveesin N., Toyama M., Van de Vliert E., Vohra N., Ward C., & Yamaguchi S. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332: 1100–1104. Google Scholar
  • George J. M. 2007. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1: 439–477.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Goncalo J. A., & Staw B. M. 2006. Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 96–109. Google Scholar
  • Guilford J. 1956. The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53: 267–293. Google Scholar
  • Harrington J. R., & Gelfand M. J. 2014. Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111: 7990–7995. Google Scholar
  • Hayes A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
  • Hempel P. S., & Sue-Chan C. 2010. Culture and the assessment of creativity. Management and Organization Review, 6: 415–435. Google Scholar
  • Hennessey B. A., Amabile T. M., & Mueller J. S. (2010). Chapter 46: Consensual Assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2nd Edition (Vol. 1, pp. 253-260). San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Horn D., & Salvendy G. 2009. Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 19: 223–240. Google Scholar
  • House R., Javidan M., Hanges P., & Dorfman P. 2002. Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37: 3–10. Google Scholar
  • Karwowski M. 2014. Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8: 62. Google Scholar
  • Kaufman J. C., & Beghetto R. A. 2009. Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1. Google Scholar
  • Keller J., & Loewenstein J. 2011. The cultural category of cooperation: A cultural consensus model analysis for China and the United States. Organization Science, 22: 299–319. Google Scholar
  • Khaleefa O. H., Erdos G., & Ashira I. 1996. Creativity in an indigenous Afro‐Arab Islamic culture: The case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30: 268–282. Google Scholar
  • Kuhn T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Google Scholar
  • Kwang N. A. 2005. Creativity, learning goal and self-construal: A cross-cultural investigation. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15: 65–80. Google Scholar
  • Lan L., & Kaufman J. C. 2012. American and Chinese similarities and differences in defining and valuing creative products. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46: 285–306. Google Scholar
  • Landers R. N., & Behrend T. S. 2015. An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8: 142–164. Google Scholar
  • Leung K., Au A.,& Leung B. W. C. 2004. Creativity and innovation: East-west comparisons with an emphasis on Chinese societies. In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui, & G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When east meets west: 113–135. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Leung K., & Morris M. W. 2011. Culture and creativity: A social psychological analysis. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dick, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations: 371–395. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar
  • Levy S. R., Chiu C.-Y., & Hong Y.-Y. 2006. Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9: 5–24. Google Scholar
  • Liu P. Z., Wang Z. X., & Liu C. C. 1997. Beijing Hua Luogeng School: A cradle for gifted children. Paper presented at the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Hong Kong, China: University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center. Google Scholar
  • Loewenstein J., Ocasio W., & Jones C. 2012. Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 41–86.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lubart T. 2010. Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity: 265–278. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Meade A. W., & Craig S. B. 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437. Google Scholar
  • Monga A. B., & John D. R. 2007. Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33: 529–536. Google Scholar
  • Morris M. W., Chiu C.-Y., & Liu Z. 2015. Polycultural psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66: 631–659. Google Scholar
  • Morris M. W., & Leung K. 2010. Creativity east and west: Perspectives and parallels. Management and Organization Review, 6: 313–327. Google Scholar
  • Mueller J. S., Melwani S., & Goncalo J. A. 2012. The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23: 13–17. Google Scholar
  • Mueller J. S., Wakslak C. J., & Krishnan V. 2014. Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51: 81–87. Google Scholar
  • Niu W., & Sternberg R. 2002. Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36: 269–288. Google Scholar
  • Niu W., & Sternberg R. 2006. The philosophical roots of Western and Eastern conceptions of creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26: 18–38. Google Scholar
  • Niu W., & Sternberg R. J. 2001. Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36: 225–241. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio W., & Joseph J. 2005. Cultural adaptation and institutional change: The evolution of vocabularies of corporate governance. Poetics, 33: 163–178. Google Scholar
  • Paletz S. B., & Peng K. 2008. Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39: 286–302. Google Scholar
  • Rao R. S., Chandy R. K., & Prabhu J. C. 2008. The fruits of legitimacy: Why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. Journal of Marketing, 72: 58–75. Google Scholar
  • Rietzschel E., Nijstad B., & Stroebe W. 2010. The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 0: 1–23. Google Scholar
  • Romney A. K., Weller S. C., & Batchelder W. H. 1986. Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88: 313–338. Google Scholar
  • Rosenkopf L., & McGrath P. 2011. Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organization Science, 22: 1297–1311. Google Scholar
  • Rostan S. M., Pariser D., & Gruber H. E. 2002. A cross-cultural study of the development of artistic talent, creativity and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 13: 125–155. Google Scholar
  • Rudowicz E. 2003. Creativity and culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47: 273–290. Google Scholar
  • Runco M. A., & Charles R. E. 1993. Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15: 537–546. Google Scholar
  • Sawyer R. K. 2012. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Searle J. R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Simonton D. K. 1999. Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity: 308. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Smith G. T., McCarthy D. M., & Anderson K. G. 2000. On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102. Google Scholar
  • Snyder M., & Swann W. B. 1978. Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14: 148–162. Google Scholar
  • Staw B. M. 1990. An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. West, Michael A. Google Scholar
  • Sternberg R. J. 1985. Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 607–627. Google Scholar
  • Suchman M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Thiel P. 2014. Zero to one: Notes on startups, or how to build the future. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group. Google Scholar
  • Triandis H. C., & Gelfand M. J. 1998. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 118. Google Scholar
  • Weijters B., Geuens M., & Schillewaert N. 2009. The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26: 2–12. Google Scholar
  • Weller S. C. 2007. Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19: 339–368. Google Scholar
  • Wonder J., & Blake J. 1992. Creativity East and West: Intuition vs. logic? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26: 172–185. Google Scholar
  • Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., & Griffin R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293–321.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Wu W. T. 1994. Many faces of creativity. Paper presented at the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference, Seoul, Korea. Google Scholar
  • Yang J., McCrae R. R., & Costa P. T. 1998. Adult age differences in personality traits in the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53: 375–383. Google Scholar
  • Yates S. 1992. Lay attributions about distress after a natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 217–222. Google Scholar
  • Zhang L.-F. 2002. Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22: 331–348. Google Scholar
  • Zhou J., & Su Y. 2010. A missing piece of the puzzle: The organizational context in cultural patterns of creativity. Management and Organization Review, 6: 391–413. Google Scholar
  Academy of Management
  555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
  Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
Academy of Management