American and Chinese Similarities and Differences in ... and Chinese Similarities and Differences in ... American and Chinese explicit ... One trend is an increase in research on creativity

L A N L A NJ A M E S C . K A U F M A N

American and Chinese Similarities andDifferences in Defining and Valuing CreativeProducts

ABSTRACTThis review of the literature explores how Americans and Chinese view creativity

and what they expect from creative products. American and Chinese explicit beliefsabout creativity (i.e., expert opinions) share many similarities. Implicit beliefs, how-ever, show more divergence: Americans tend to value novelty and more “ground-breaking” types of creativity, whereas Chinese tend to appreciate creativity withinconstraints, such as reworking a traditional concept. The context of how peoplerespond to creativity obviously varies by culture, although there are also somecommunal and universal creative ideals.

Let the Bullets Fly (Jiang, 2010) was one the greatest cinematic successes in Chi-nese film history. The action/comedy starring Chow Yun-fat made a record-setting$100 million dollars in its native country. Yet when the film had its Americanpremiere (at the Tribeca film festival), filmgoers left in the middle of the movie; thefestival ended without a distribution deal. Indeed, the film does not have an Ameri-can distributor as of this writing. This cross-cultural disconnect is not an isolatedincident; many recent Chinese films have not met with financial (or critical) successin America (Zeitchik & Pierson, 2011).

Why does such a discrepancy exist? This paper aims to review the research litera-ture on how Americans and Chinese evaluate creative products and what they expectfrom them. Starting with an overview of how Americans and Chinese define andassess creativity, we will then examine previous research from the broad view of cul-ture context. We will specifically emphasize cultural similarities and differences inexpectations for a creative person and a creative product. We will also discuss thedifferences between how people desire a product and how they assess a product,then explore avenues for future research.

Creativity research came to prominence 60 years ago in America. From earlywork on divergent thinking (Guilford, 1950), creativity now has a multitude ofapproaches and perspectives. A small sampling include approaches rooted inpersonality (Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010), social psychology(Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001), cognitive psychology (Finke, Ward & Smith,

285 The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 46, Iss. 4, pp. 285–306 © 2013 by the Creative Education Foundation, Inc. © DOI: 10.1002/jocb.19

1992), and neuroscience (Beversdorf, Hughes, Steinberg, Lewis & Heilman, 1999).One trend is an increase in research on creativity and culture. Common themesinclude how cultures vary in the relative dichotomy between the importance ofcreativity and adherence to traditional norms (Torrance, 1988), as well as how dif-ferences in creative features are related to other cultural values (Paletz & Peng,2008). Culture likely influences the definition, expression, and evaluation of crea-tivity (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998; Niu & Sternberg, 2001). Correspondingly, peoplein different cultural contexts may have different social values and attitudes thatdeeply affect their motivations, attitudes, emotions, and thinking (Markus &Kitayama, 1991), thereby impacting creativity in a further multitude of ways.

Thus, examining creativity from a cross-cultural point of view is needed for a ful-ler picture of how creativity can be defined and assessed (Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross, Tobacyk & Walczyk, 2006). One of the most common approaches is to lookat differences between the East and the West, with individualistic (Western) and col-lectivistic (Eastern) societies offering many points of comparison (Tsang & Prender-gast, 2009). Within such East-West cross-cultural work, American and Chinesecultures are among the most often studies, in part because they represent the twolargest economies (United States, then China) in the world (Barboza, 2010). Not allEast Asian cultures are exactly the same (Paletz & Peng, 2008), of course, so onebenefit of narrowing a focus on Chinese and American cultures is that specificallycomparing these two cultures can help draw a clearer picture under a more control-lable context.

The first step is the most straightforward in many ways: How do Americans andChinese define creativity? What do the experts say, and what do laypeople think?

AMERICAN AND CHINESE WORK ON CREATIVITYThere are two ways to define a construct. One is to gather explicit definitions.

These often come from psychologists or other experts and are typically based onscientific data. In contrast, implicit definitions are personal beliefs about a topic.Such implicit definitions are often not articulated, but exist in a person’s mind(Sternberg, 1985). We will examine studies focusing on both types of definitions.

EXPLICIT DEFINITIONS

Explicit theories are typically psychometric in nature (Runco & Bahleda, 1986)and generally multi-dimensional, trying to explain what combination of elements isnecessary for creativity to exist (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Creativityhas been conceptualized using many different variables, such as personality (Bateyet al., 2010), motivation (Amabile, 1985), intelligence (Sternberg, 2001), and prob-lem-solving abilities (Getzels, 1975).

Within American research, many researchers agree that the originality/novelty is acritical characteristic of creativity (Amabile, 1983; Barron, 1955; Sternberg & Lubart,1999; Torrance, 1988). Most definitions (Kaufman, 2009) center around two keyaspects of a creative product: it should be both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) andappropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints). In other words, a

286

Defining and Valuing Creative Products

creative product must not only be new but also fulfill any necessary requirements(Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Such requirements could be very low (such asfor modern dance) or very high (such as for developing a treatment for diabetes).Cropley (2001) further argues that a creative product should reflect novelty, rele-vance and effectiveness, elegance, and genesis (ability to be applied to other areas).

Another perspective can be found in Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) Systems Model.He defines creativity as an interaction between the domain, the field, and the person.A domain is a preexisting area of expertise. It could be as broad as mathematics orscience; it could be as specific as game theory or particle physics. Creativity occurswhen a domain is changed in some way. The field is defined as the “gatekeepers” –teachers, editors, critics, and so on. The field interacts directly with the domain; thefield shapes a domain (i.e., the editors of psychology journals help determine howthe domain of psychology is advanced) and the domain shapes the field (i.e., devel-opments within the domain, such as new scientific discoveries, greatly impact howthe gatekeepers make judgments). The third component is the person – the one whocreates an idea or theory or piece of art. The success of such a creative product willlikely depend on the interaction between the field (the gatekeepers) and the person.The field can impact the creative product in a negative way (via suppression orextensive criticism) or in a positive way (via mentorship and nurturance). Finally,the domain defines the space in which a person creates. A creative person designinga product within the domain of children’s toys is unlikely to include sharp needlesand hallucinogenic drugs as part of the design, because children’s toys require acertain level of safety and age appropriateness. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) approachconceptualizes the creative act as being inherently interactive and context-dependent;any given culture will influence the members of the domain, the gatekeepers of thefield, and the creative people in a myriad of different ways.

Within the Chinese creativity research community, many initial definitions ofcreativity were simply the application of American theories into a Chinese culturalcontext (Li, 2011). One possible reason could be that there is no way of directlytranslating the word “creativity” into Chinese. Based on the most authoritative Chi-nese dictionary-Xinhua Dictionary, there are two expressions that most closely referto the concept of creativity. The first is “Chuang Zao,” which means the ability tocreate and invent, including the ability of problem-finding, foreseeing and judging,problem-solving, task-accomplishing, and assumption-testing (Xinhua Dictionary,n.d.). Levels of creativity mainly depend on experience, knowledge, method and psy-chological diathesis. The second is “Chuang”, which means having or providing acreative idea, conception, etc. (Xinhua Dictionary, n.d.), an abstract concept aboutwhich characteristics may be associated with creativity. Neither expression is usefulin discussing the creative product.

As social psychology became a dominant presence in psychology, more and morecross-cultural research searched for historical and indigenous roots of the concept ofcreativity and compared Chinese conceptions with those of Westerners (Rudowicz,2004). The most common definition of creativity, from the field of education,encompasses the sum of creative skill, creative thinking, and creative ability of a

287

Journal of Creative Behavior

person pursuing creating activities (Lin, 2000; Niu, 2006). Mao, Guo, Chen and Lin(2000) used this definition to generate eight different characteristics of creativity:Creating a product that had never been created before, living a creative life, solvinga problem, combining factors and building new relationships, having the ability tobe creative, having a creative personality, thinking creatively, and comprehensiveperformance.

Most conceptions of the creative product, however, are simply based on the crea-tivity industry in China (Li, 2007; Yin, 2011). Novelty and inventions are eithernon-existent or conceptualized differently in traditional Chinese teaching (Rudowicz,2004). Chinese tend to conceptualize creativity with a more socially related attitude.Li (2007) proposed that creative goods are products or services that have symbolicvalue, social meaning, and a certain cultural connotation, mainly created by thedevelopment and application of intellectual property rights based on the require-ments of society and individual creativity, skill, and ability. Previous research hasshown that Chinese tend to link creativity to ethical and moral standards, whichbears little semblance to the Western concept of creativity (Lau, Hui & Ng, 2004).

IMPLICIT DEFINITIONS

Stein (1953) proposed that creativity must be defined in terms of the culture inwhich it appears. Culture can influence creativity’s frequency, quality, and percep-tion (Zha et al., 2006). Implicit theories are conceptual rather than empirical andderived from individuals’ belief-systems (Runco & Bahleda, 1986). By formulatingthe common cultural views on creativity and understanding what people from cer-tain cultures mean when referring to creativity, implicit theories help provide abroader scope from which to look at creativity. Such work can highlight underlyingand shared assumptions that drive people to think and behave in certain ways. Thisimplicit knowledge is generally held by laypeople in the same culture or sub-cultureand is not discussed, questioned, or consciously considered (Paletz & Peng, 2008).Furthermore, its impact on individual thoughts and feelings may be more proximalthan explicitly held values (e.g., Hong, Morris, Chiu & Benet-Martinez, 2000).

Yet comparing implicit definitions between the United States and China is noteasy. The first step is exploring two different points of view: “culture-universality”or “culture-specificity.” Some researchers believe creativity is a concept that containsuniversal meaning, and thus can be measured by a standardized or universallymeaningful test. Niu and Sternberg (2002) argue that most cross-cultural researchis based on the assumption of a universal understanding of creativity, typicallycreator-focused. Research on how people conceive of creative products has showncross-cultural agreement that a product must be accepted as useful, satisfactory, orappropriate by a group at some point in time in order to be considered creative(Rudowicz, 2003; Stein, 1953). Although less research focuses specifically on Chinesevs. American creativity, if the range is expanded to include studies on Eastern andWestern creativity then there is a solid body of work to draw upon.

Some research focused on cultural differences in implicit views on creativity (e.g.,Niu & Sternberg, 2002; Rudowicz, 2003). The Western conception of creativity is

288


primarily concerned with innovation, whereas the Eastern conception of creativity ismore dynamic, involving the reuse and reinterpretation of tradition rather than abreak in tradition (Lubart, 2010). Thus, Eastern creative individuals are moreinclined to adhere to the socio-cultural norms when they come up with a new ideaor creative product. Further research shows that Easterners tend to view time,human action in time, and progress through time as a circular conception, thuscreativity is the rediscovery of a “pre-established holistic reality” (Westwood & Low,2003), thus is consistent with history and societal norms.

In addition, the translation of creativity might be different based on different cul-tural and language systems. Most cross-cultural studies have been criticized for usinga “Western” framework in defining and measuring creativity even in other parts ofthe world, as they may represent a distorted view of the phenomena without havingthe same meanings or resonance as in another context (Westwood & Low, 2003).Rudowicz’s (2003) research shows that the focus on newness in the Western concep-tion is not shared in the East. The meaning of novelty and originality fits NorthAmerican belief system perfectly based on the ideals of individuality, democracy,and freedom, but Eastern societies have developed a different perspective on themeaning inherent to novelty and originality rooted in their cultural context.Although some research argues the standards of creativity may not differ dependingon the culture, a difference in the importance placed on those standards remainsacross cultures (Averill, Chon & Hahn, 2001). We will further expand these differ-ences in the following review. Specifically, Hempel and Sue-Chan (2010) pointedout there is a considerable agreement between Chinese and Americans examiningthe concept of creativity in East and West from the view of beholders; however,more specific investigations are still needed.

THE CREATIVE PRODUCT

Generally speaking, creativity is considered to have various features based on dif-ferent levels or aspects. Studies on creativity mainly focus on four facets: the person,process, product, and press/environment (the four P’s) first categorized by Rhodes(1961). Research on the person investigates the creative individual’s personality aswell as motivational states. The creative process research focuses on creative thinkingand production. The press investigates environmental pressures that may facilitate orinhibit creativity. The creative product represents the end result of a person’s crea-tive process, tangible or not, such as a poem, dance, essay, cake, computer program,or machine tool (O’Quin & Besemer, 1999). Of the four P’s, the creative product isprobably the most widely studied and measured. The product definitions are widelyregarded as the most useful for applied creativity research (Amabile, 1982, 1983).

To fully explore how people define and value creative products in different cul-tures, we should first specify the nature of creativity in products. Is it universal orculture-specific? Based on the fact that the definition of creativity is different acrosscultures in its very meaning, people will look differently upon creative products aswell. In China, the creative product is broadly believed to be the outcome of the cre-ative industry (Wang, Xie & Chen, 2007). These products are slightly different

289


according to different creative industry lists; for example, Shanghai and Beijing havetheir own industry lists (Zhang, 2009). Generally the creative industry covers suchareas as “industry design,” “film-video & art,” “software service,” “fashion,” “archi-tectural adornment,” and “exhibiting & publishing.” This conception is differentfrom the American creative product. Although creative goods have been used inAmerican research studies, creative products have rarely been connected with thecreative industry as economic activities. More often than not, objects created by arandom individual, such as a poem, drawing, writing, or even a sentence, have beenconsidered creative products in academic research (Kaufman, Plucker & Baer, 2008).A creative product for Americans is more of a creation, whereas Chinese mayconsider it more as goods for sale.

On the basis of previous research, we can see that people with different back-grounds hold different opinions of product creativity. Even if they statistically“agree” with each other, the words they use to express creativity might vary fromculture to culture. As Gl�aveanu (2010b) pointed out, any process or product can beevaluated as being more or less creative, but always in relation to a certain group,domain, or historical period. Most researchers typically do not bother to offersupplementary explanations in current evaluations of creative products. In the nextsection, we will expand this line of thought and review how a creative product isevaluated by American and Chinese.

EVALUATING CREATIVE PRODUCTS IN AMERICA AND CHINABased on different understandings of the creative product, people use different

ways to value those products. By designing different tools to test different groups ofpeople, assessing the creative product is more effective and efficient. Three categoriesof assessment methods could be found in general: expert ratings, scale-based ratings,and layperson ratings. Expert ratings are based on expert (or quasi-expert) judg-ments, which are believed to be the best judges of creativity; scale-based ratings relyon product rating scales, mainly used in engineering in industry; layperson ratingsare used for assessing how “average” people think of creativity (i.e., aestheticresponse) Each way has its own focus in specific areas.

EXPERT RATINGS

A series of findings show that experts and novices perceive, evaluate, create, andexperience art differently (Axelsson, 2007; Kozbelt & Seeley, 2007). Experts are morelikely than novices to consider aesthetic value, the ideas behind the work, and thenorms of “good” and “bad” taste (Tallberg, 2007). Kozbelt and Seeley (2007)claimed that art historians, artists, psychologists, and neuroscientists also have longasserted that artists perceive the world differently than non-artists. Although empiri-cal research on the nature and correlates of skilled drawing is limited, the availableevidence supports this view that artists outperform non-artists on visual analysis andform recognition tasks. Evidence has been found from empirical aesthetics thatexperts find art more interesting and pleasing, particularly when it is complex, chal-lenging, and abstract (Axelsson, 2007; Hekkert & van Wieringen, 1996; Silvia & Berg,

290


2011; Winston & Cupchik, 1992); meanwhile, experts react more negatively than nov-ices in simple stimuli evaluation (Tallberg, 2007). Axelsson’s (2007) study providedevidence that photo professionals had a higher ability to process photographic infor-mation and preferred photographs that were relatively uncertain and unfamiliar.Similarly, an average person would have more difficulty in evaluating the creativity ofa scientific theorem or mathematical proof than one well versed in those areas(Simonton, 2004). In a recent study, Silvia and Berg (2011) measured expertise infilm appraisals and found differences between experts and novices in the effects com-plexity had on interest. Reviewers with expertise in film found complex films moreinteresting and less confusing than their novice counterparts. This echoes an earlierstudy on the influence of art training on interest, showing that people with hightraining in art found complex pictures relatively more interesting (Silvia, 2006).

Lee, Lee and Youn (2005) applied generalizability theory techniques to expert andnovice ratings of flower designs. Their experts were professional artists who workedin flower design and their novices were undergraduate students. They found low lev-els of inter-rater reliability in the novices, as in past studies. They also calculatedthat the variance due to raters was much less for the experts, also indicating a higherlevel of agreement. Finally, Lee et al. (2005) found that product-based variance wastwice as high in experts as in novices. In other words, novices were much less likelyto be able to discriminate between different types of flower designs.

In addition, experts and novices differ in the types of information that prompteddetailed message processing. Maheswaran and Sternthal (1990) found that expertsare more likely than novices to process details given only attribute information (e.g.,a description of product function). In contrast, novices tend to give a favorablejudgment when given benefit information (e.g., product advantage). Besides focusingon different factors, experts may be harsher than peer or self assessments in theassessments of artwork (Kaufman, Baer, Cole & Sexton, 2008; Kaufman, Pluckeret al., 2008b).

The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a specific technique that utilizesthe subjective judgment of original products by experts (Amabile, 1982) and has beenproved to be the most widely used method in product-based assessment of creativity(Hennessey & Amabile, 1999; Hennessey, Kim, Guomin & Weiwei, 2008; Kaufman,Baer et al., 2008a). In the CAT, participants are asked to create a drawing, writing,or even a sentence, which experts are later asked to evaluate the creativity of theproduct. Previous studies show that experts provide reliable and valid judgments(Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Some studies have compared novice-expert assessments on creative products, concluding that experts are far more consis-tent in their ratings compared to novices, hence would be able to give a moreaccurate assessment. Kaufman, Baer et al. (2008; see Kaufman & Baer, 2012) examineboth novice and expert judgments of student short fiction using the CAT. Resultsindicate that experts were far more consistent in their ratings compared tonon-experts, which were more inconsistent with lower inter-rater reliability and didnot match those of the expert raters.

291


Gl�aveanu (2010a) used multiple feedback methodology in evaluating the creativityof Romanian Easter eggs. This approach requires “appropriate assessors”, who aremore involved and in contact with the product, to evaluate the creativity of a certainproduct or class of products. In this study, four groups (ethnographers, priests, artteachers and folk artists) of 27 evaluators in total who have relevant backgroundwere included. This methodology also requires an in-depth understanding of thesocial and cultural context of creativity evaluations (Gl�aveanu, 2010a). Although thisstudy claimed to use non-experts to make an assessment, it seems these “appropriateassessors” should be labeled as quasi-experts rather than laypeople. This methodechoes how Amabile defined creativity 30 years ago: that the assessment of creativityof a product or response should be made by appropriate observers who are familiarwith the domain in which the product was created or the response articulated(Amabile, 1982, 1983).

Chinese expert assessment could be found in both cross-cultural studies in Eng-lish journals and Chinese domestic studies in Chinese. The CAT has been widelyused because it is free of cultural and linguistic bias (Hennessey et al., 2008). Initialstudies focused on aesthetic judgment and have generally found consistencies acrossEastern and Western cultures (Berlyne, 1976; Iwao, Child & Garcia, 1969).

Hennessey et al. (2008) used the CAT to examine four countries, including Chinaand America, to explore the applicability of the CAT focusing on product creativity.Results found that judges’ ratings of product creativity were highly reliable, echoingpast findings (Niu & Sternberg, 2001; Rostan, Pariser & Gruber, 2002). Other cross-cultural studies comparing American and Chinese expert assessments have yieldedinconsistencies. For example, Tsang and Prendergast (2009) used content analysis tocompare computer game reviews from Chinese and American participants, obtainedfrom six (three American and three Chinese) popular PC-game magazines. Researchfound similar evidence that, although both Chinese and American reviews have arelatively equal number of positive comments, Chinese reviews use fewer negativecomments and give higher final ratings for the same set of products than theirAmerican counterparts. In addition, Chinese reviews showed a lower consistencybetween their evaluative comments and their final ratings (Tsang & Prendergast,2009). Correspondingly, Jawecki, F€uller and Gebauer (2011) analyzed American andChinese online discussion boards and found comparable levels of quality and crea-tivity in the comments but different creative styles. Chinese board members, forexample, were both less competitive and less organized. These findings are consistentwith studies of Chinese and American cultures. As a society that highly relies oncontext, Chinese raters are more likely to communicate in ambiguous or implicitways (Lau et al., 2004).

In China, most of the creativity assessment tools originate from Western studies.Expert assessments in China has been introduced in literature reviews or qualityresearch (Song & Shi, 2005), rather than empirical studies. The CAT has been usedin creativity assessment mostly in Taiwan and Hong Kong, however it is mostly usedto assess creativity of children in general aspects (Lau et al., 2004). Some studieshave claimed to develop their own assessment scale based on western creativity

292


assessment tools, such as the CAT, many being scale-based methods requiringfurther testing from more studies. For example, Xu (2007) developed the “CreativeProduct Assessment Scale” in his Master’s thesis based on Amabile’s CAT andZhang’s (2008) product creativity assessment scale. Ten experts who have beentrained or have worked in creativity education and training were asked to judgestudents’ creative products. Results have shown that product function is betterexpressed than product aesthetic outlook (Xu, 2007).

LAYPERSON RATINGS

Experts are considered to be better judges of creativity in a certain domain at acertain time (such as during the decision process for the Nobel Prize). However,there is also value in determining what “average” people (or laypersons) think ofcreativity (i.e., how they evaluate creative products). For example, experts in theindustry would not necessarily know how consumers feel about the product, a cus-tomer may not agree with Michelin’s restaurant ratings. In recent research, Gl�aveanu(2010b) suggested that the value of a creative product must never be assessed onlyon the basis of expert judgment, or from the perspective of the creators, rather itshould be assessed based on multiple forms of feedback from a wider audience.Assessments made by novices cannot be replaced by those of experts. This is moreimportant in cross-cultural studies, as beliefs about creativity originate from thecustoms, traditions, and values of the culture are mainly brought by laypeople,unaffected by expert or professional knowledge (Hempel & Sue-Chan, 2010).

In America, more and more studies have started to pay attention to how averagepeople feel about creative products. As mentioned earlier, Horn and Salvendy (2006)tested consumer perception of product creativity and indicate that there are threeproduct creativity dimensions (centrality, importance, and desire) that significantlypredict customer satisfaction (40% of the explained variance) and purchasability(33% of the explained variance) of creative products. In their following studies,three main product creativity factors (affect, importance, and novelty) have beenfound. The affect factor is highly related to the consumer’s purchase attitude towarda creative product; equally important as novelty in consumer perception of productcreativity. In addition, affect and importance dimensions significantly predictcustomer satisfaction (Horn & Salvendy, 2009). Maheswaran and Sternthal (1990)also supports the hypothesis that in the aesthetic domain, preference and judgmentsdiverge in the assessment of a product; people may not like a work that be recog-nized as a good work, while they may like a work even if they judge it to be notvery good.

Other studies also suggest shared subjective criteria of creativity in any domainchanges over time and differ across cultures, which therefore must, ultimately, beculturally and historically bound. What is considered to be a creative drawing inone culture would not necessarily convey the same assessment in another culture(Chen et al., 2002). For example, Niu and Sternberg (2001) compared the creativityratings of artwork created by American and Chinese college students, as well as thecriteria used by American and Chinese judges to evaluate these works. The difference

293


between the use of criteria by American and Chinese judges was small, and consistedmainly of the American judges’ use of stricter standards in evaluating overallcreativity. Moreover, there was a greater consensus among Chinese judges regardingwhat constitutes creativity than among American judges. Rostan et al. (2002) used asimilar methodology comparing Chinese American and Caucasian students’ artwork,with two groups in each culture: students with additional art training and classesand students with no such classes. Each group’s artwork (one drawing from life andone drawing from imagination) was judged by both Chinese and American judges.There were no significant differences between cultures from either set of judges, onlybetween art students versus non-art students.

In addition, cultures differ in their emphasis on novelty versus usefulness(appropriateness) of creativity. When evaluating creativity, Westerners emphasizenovelty more than appropriateness compared with non-Westerners (Lubart, 2010).Consequently, the need for variety and uniqueness tends to be weaker in East Asiancultures compared with Western cultures (Erez & Nouri, 2010; Kim & Drolet,2003). Consistent with this view, Yue and Leung (2003) assessed the attitudes con-cerning creativity among Hong Kong and mainland Chinese undergraduates andfound that emphasis was placed on concepts such as social responsibility and socie-tal contributions rather than personal satisfaction and other intrinsic qualities. Thisfinding is in direct contrast to a series of Western studies emphasizing the impor-tance of intrinsic motivation to creative performance (e.g., Amabile, 1985; Amabile,Goldfarb & Brackfleld, 1990). It is interesting to note that the determinants ofintrinsic motivation may differ by culture; Iyengar and Lepper (1999) found thatpersonal choice was less related to intrinsic motivation in Asian children than inAmerican children.

In China, however, creativity is seen more as a means to an end, supporting thenotion that Chinese tend to emphasize the appropriateness dimension of creativity(Leung & Morris, 2011). Also, lacking priority, creativity was less encouraged inChinese culture possibly explaining why Chinese students improve more than Amer-ican students when motivated to be creative (Niu & Sternberg, 2001). Besidescultural factors, an ecological account may provide another explanation of whycreativity (particularly novelty) is less emphasized in non-Western cultures. Mostnon-Western cultures are less affluent, so the dominant ethos channels people’sattention and energy toward survival needs rather than the pursuit of novelty andstimulation. In line with this reasoning, Schwartz and Sagie (2000) found that across42 societies, socioeconomic development was positively related to self-direction,which includes the value of creativity and curiosity.

However, other researchers have found contrary results regarding the effect of theindividual in rating the creative product. Paletz and Peng (2008) manipulated thenovelty and appropriateness of different products and asked university students fromChina, Japan, and the United States to indicate their evaluation and desirability.Surprisingly, Chinese were more influenced by novelty and less by appropriatenessin their desirability ratings than both Japanese and Americans. Leung and Morris(2011) argued this finding is inconsistent with previous results because Beijing

294


underwent phenomenal economic growth in the past decade; its norms, therefore,shifted toward an emphasis on novelty.

It is important to note that dimensions important to product assessment are notnecessarily equivalent to what people actually desire from the product. In consumerbehavior research, things we call our own are referred to as possessions (Belk, 1988).These are distinguished from the temporal or long-term utilization without purchaseand ownership, referred to as experience (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Pine &Gilmore, 1999). Cultures differ in their values, which influence what is desirable orundesirable (Erez & Nouri, 2010). When people are asked to rate creative productswith certain internal standards, different preferences are shown in Eastern and Wes-tern research. For example, Chinese respondents emphasize assimilation needs asmore favorable, whereas Americans stress differentiation needs (Aaker & Schmitt,2001). The most direct evidence is provided by Paletz and Peng (2008). In theirstudy, mentioned earlier, they also found that both novelty and appropriateness havestrong significant effects on both ratings of creativity and desire; however, noveltywas more important overall for creativity, and appropriateness was more importantoverall for desire. Further, they found that Chinese are more strongly influenced bythe novelty manipulation than were Americans (Paletz & Peng, 2008). It is one ofthe few studies to distinguish the evaluation of product itself and how desirable it isfor people who assess it.

SCALE-BASED RATINGS

In addition to expert and layperson ratings of creative products, another methodis to use a specific product rating scale. Such scales typically have detailed criteriafor assessing creativity and can ideally reduce discrepancy among raters. Onesystem is the Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM), which is aimed to assesscreativity, such as in works of art, new product ideas in manufacturing, or whenconsidering other types of artifacts of the creative process (Besemer, 1998; Besemer& O’Quin, 1999; Besemer & Treffinger, 1981). This method is based on explicittheory and posits three important indicators of creativity in products: novelty, res-olution, and elaboration and synthesis. Each factor is then divided into categoriesor facets that further describe the product. The dimension of novelty addresses var-ious aspects of newness in a product, such as outlook and materials; the dimensionof resolution concerns function that is how well the product does what it is sup-posed to be; the dimension of elaboration and synthesis, also called style, oftenrelates to aesthetic appreciation of the product. Based on the CPAM, the CreativeProduct Semantic Scale (CPSS) is an evaluation instrument intended to assesscreativity using non-expert judges and has been tested and developed by empiricalstudies in the United States (Besemer, 1986, 1998; Besemer & O’Quin, 1987;O’Quin & Besemer, 1989).

The authors of the CPSS have argued that their measure helps businesses in mar-keting, new product design, product improvement, and advertising (O’Quin, Bese-mer & Buffalo, 2006). For example, the CPSS has also been used in advertisingassessment to compare different types of advertising (White & Smith, 2001; White,

295


Shen & Smith, 2002). In another study, Besemer (2000) asked designers to createconcept drawings and were able to present highly unusual ideas. Results show that,although customers appreciated these ideas (ratings of “surprise” were high), “logicaland useful” ratings were low.

The CPAM was also used as a framework for testing participants’ attitudestoward creative products from the business perspective, Horn and Salvendy (2006)developed a model of consumer perception of product creativity consisting of sevendimensions: novelty, resolution, elaboration and synthesis, pleasure, arousal, central-ity, and applicability.

Another creative product rating scale is the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale(CSDS; Cropley & Cropley, 2005), based on four dimensions: relevance and effec-tiveness, novelty, elegance, and genesis. They arranged them in a hierarchy rangingfrom the “routine” product (characterized by effectiveness alone), to the “innova-tive” product (characterized by all four dimensions above) at the extremes, and “ori-ginal” and “elegant” products in the more moderate center. They pointed out thereare both levels and kinds of creativity, that is to say products can have creativity togreater or lesser degrees, or display different kinds. In empirical studies designed totest the CSDS, Cropley and Kaufman (2012) and Cropley, Kaufman and Cropley(2011) had two groups of non-experts use the CSDS to evaluate the creativity of dif-ferent mousetrap designed. Based on factor analyses from these studies, the CSDSwas reframed to measure five criteria: Relevance & Effectiveness, Problematization,Propulsion, Elegance and Genesis.

Many other product rating scales exist, including some aimed at specialized pop-ulations. For example, Horng and Lin’s (2009) Scale for Evaluating Creative Culi-nary Products uses 34 assessment criteria in 8 categories: professional technique;aroma, taste, and texture; color; modeling and arrangement; garnish; dishware; han-dling of ingredients; and overall assessment. Reis and Renzulli (1991) developed theStudent Product Assessment Form (SPAF) in order to aid teachers in rating studentproducts. The SPAF measured five types of products: scientific, creative writing,social studies, audiovisual, and interdisciplinary products and has been repeatedlyproven to be valid and reliable. Im and Workman (2004), developed NP (new prod-uct) and MP (marketing program) creativity measures, examined both new productcreativity and marketing programs and suggested that new product success was dri-ven more by the “valuable and meaningful attributes” (resolution) of the productsand their marketing programs than by novelty.

Most Chinese product ratings scales are rooted in Western measurement tools,although often modified to fit Chinese culture. When using Western scales, Chineseresearchers tend to combine several scales into a multi-scale according to researchdesign. For example, Tan (2005) uses a product creativity assessment scale that includedthe CPSS and Horn and Salvendy’s (2006) scale and other instruments to test productcreativity assessment based on consumer satisfaction. Cheung, Tse and Tsang’s (2001)Chinese Creative Writing Scale is a rare example of a Chinese-developed assessmenttool. This scale contains 13 items, addressing flexibility, originality, and fluency to assesscreative Chinese writing ability of primary school students in Hong Kong.

296


AMERICAN AND CHINESE EXPECTATIONS OF CREATIVEPRODUCTS

We will further examine cultural differences between what Americans and Chineseexpect from creative products from two perspectives. The first will follow the core ofimplicit theory and find evidence from broader contexts, such as culture. The second isto analyze different factors on how American and Chinese think a creative personshould be, as there is little direct evidence, if any, on what American and Chineseexpect from a creative product. The rationale behind this method lies in the fact thatevaluations of creative products have commonly been used to assess how creative anindividual is (Niu & Sternberg, 2001), the product being the external expression ofinternal creativity. Knowing what specific characteristics or dimensions people expectfrom a creative person may help to find what people expect from a product.

By reviewing papers on creativity across and within cultures, we can see a univer-sal agreement that cultures do vary in the relative importance of creativity andadherence to traditional norms and how differences in creative features are relatedto other cultural values (Paletz & Peng, 2008; Torrance, 1988). Current researchdemonstrates that evaluative judgments, which might be assumed to always alignwith the implicit theories that stem from cultural knowledge, undergo dynamicshifts as well (Briley & Aaker, 2006). The evolved view of cultural influence that isemerging from this line of research suggests that stable, domain-general effects arefew and far between. By viewing cultural features, respectively, we aim to draw aclearer picture about what American and Chinese expect from creative products.

The dimension of individualism/collectivism has been frequently compared to dis-tinguish Eastern and Western communication styles (Triandis, 1995). Cross-culturalpsychologists have judged it to be one of the most concise, coherent, integrated, andempirically testable aspects of cultural variation (Kim, Triandis, Ka�gitc�ibas�i, Choi &Yoon, 1994). Some researchers suggest that individualism and collectivism are the“prime distinction” between North American and Chinese cultures (Tse, Lee, Vertin-sky & Wehrung, 1988). Individualism has been recognized as a defining characteristicof western culture in general, American culture in particular (Zha et al., 2006). In sucha society, autonomy is highly valued and an individual is viewed as a separate entity.Chinese culture, on the other hand, is collectivistic, in which all people are sociallyinterrelated (Lau et al., 2004). People in such cultures tend to look after others’ needsand preserve their feelings to seek interpersonal harmony (Hsieh & Scammon, 1993).Many cultural differences are related to or rooted in this dimension.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed that people of Western cultures tended tobe independent and to find meaning largely by reference to their own internalthoughts, feelings, and actions rather than by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of oth-ers. On the other hand, people of the East including Chinese, Indians, or Japanese, tendto hold an interdependent perspective of the self in which meaning depends more oninterpersonal relationships. In other words, in the United States, individuals oftenfocused on discovering and expressing themselves and on accentuating differencesfrom others, whereas Chinese attach a great deal of importance to “face” and tend toseek agreement from others. Bond and Lee (1981) argue that, “face,” equivalent to the

297


indigenous Chinese concept of “mianzi,” refers to a person’s prestige, in which one’ssuccess is driven by being honored by other people. Concern with enhancing self-esteem however, leads North Americans to adhere to their own internal standards(Heine, Takemoto, Moskalenko, Lasaleta & Henrich, 2008). Although the tendency ofpreserving face is also found in American culture (Hallahan, Lee & Herzog, 1997), itdoes not permeate its social interactions. In addition, America has small powerdistance (low agreeableness and conscientiousness), somewhat weak uncertaintyavoidance (openness to experience and emotional stability), moderate masculinity(conscientiousness and low agreeableness), and short-term orientation (emotionalinstability), thus creating a cultural environment that supports people to show unique-ness and differences (Westwood & Low, 2003). Comparatively, uncertainty avoidanceand high power distance may restrain Chinese from expressing their unique ideas andfrom deviating from the norm (Erez & Nouri, 2010).

Maintaining “face” motivation tends to make Asians adhere to social norms. Inaddition, the sensitivity to social context also varies across cultures. East Asians tend tobe more sensitive to social contexts, paying closer attention to the views of others andadjust their behaviors accordingly (Ng, 2001). People in a collectivistic society, such asChina, are generally more caring about what other people think based on social normsand are accustomed to a high-context communication style. Ambiguous, indirect,implicit wording and understatements are commonly used and accepted in expressionsin such cultures (Tsang & Prendergast, 2009). In contrast, individualistic cultures valuelow-context communications. Speakers in low-context cultures express their trueintentions and expect their listeners to directly understand what has been expressed(Lau et al., 2004). Social context establishes a range in which uniqueness and noveltywill be acceptable. The norms of a social context establish boundaries of uniquenessand usefulness. As such, some ideas may be so unique that they are rejected, ignored,or dismissed as irrelevant (even though they have much potential usefulness).

Paletz, Peng and Li (2011) examined implicit theories of creativity by askingChinese, Japanese, and American students to rate which profession was morecreative in forced choice pairs (the six professions were artist, team manager, philos-opher, scientist, inventor, and a deeply spiritual person). Their focus was on whetherthe professions expressed creativity internally (dispositional) or externally (experien-tially). They found that Asian students were more likely to pick externally focusedprofessions as being creative, whereas American students were more likely to pickinternally focused professions.

Rudowicz (2003) reviewed another approach to explore the East–West differencesin creative expression based on the theory of two forms of knowledge, intuitive andlogical. In Wonder and Blake’s (1992) research, Eastern thought is believed to bemore “intuitive” (i.e., more experiential, subjective, changing, and nonsystematic),whereas Western thought is more “logical” (i.e., more structured, unemotional, andindividualistic). Thus, Westerners tend to rely on logic and demands that everythingfit together according to existing laws. Easterners, in contrast, are more likely torearrange the pattern based on the existing “database” culture, and are less likely toforce the creative process by introducing new information (Wonder & Blake, 1992).

298


This idea is supported by previous research showing that Easterners are more likelyto conform to social norms (Ng, 2001; Sternberg, 1985; Westwood & Low, 2003).

Americans and Chinese seem to have different implicit understandings of creativ-ity, with different aspects being stressed more by different cultures. Explicit beliefsabout creativity do show some similarity, as in Paletz and Peng’s (2008) finding ofthe importance of novelty for both American and Chinese. Differences are morenoticeable between the groups in expectations for a creative product: (1) Americansare likely to expect a creative product to be more new and “groundbreaking,” and(2) Chinese emphasize the social components of creativity, expecting a creativeproduct to be more consistent with tradition and social norms (Yue, 2004). Forexample, a sarcastic cartoon on politics or a government leader might be seen asfunny and creative in America, however, may be believed to be anti-social and reck-less in China. Gilson and Madjar (2011) distinguish between radical and incrementalcreativity; it may be predicted that Americans would prefer radical creativity,whereas Chinese people may equally respond to incremental creativity.

AMERICAN AND CHINESE EXPECTATIONS OF CREATIVE PEOPLEIf creativity is multi-dimensional, one key aim of explicit theories is to explicate

which combinations of elements are most needed (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg &Lubart, 1995). Many studies explore which characteristics a creative person shouldhave; as with creative products, there are both similarities and differences acrossAmerica and China. Some concepts, such as “innovative ideas,” “imagination,”“intelligence,” “independence,” and “high levels of activity/energy” are shared byboth Chinese and Western conceptions of creativity (Rudowicz & Hui, 1997). Stern-berg (1985) asked both American experts and laypeople to list behaviors that wouldbe characteristic of creative people in art, business, philosophy, and physics. Theresult of multidimensional scaling shows certain creative behaviors, such as “ques-tion(ing) societal norms, truisms, assumptions” and “Aesthetic taste (e.g., has anappreciation of art, music, and so forth; has good taste)” and “imagination.” Otherstudies have linked creativity with having a good sense of humor (Murdock &Ganim, 1993). Yet Rudowicz and Hui’s (1997) found that traits such as humor,aesthetics, and art appreciation were absent in Hong Kong’s concepts of creativitydespite their importance in Western conceptions. It is also noteworthy that those inHong Kong said they considered a person creative based on “contribution to soci-ety,” a component not present in the North American samples. Rudowicz and Yue(2000) further found that being aesthetics and humor were rarely mentioned inimplicit concepts of undergraduates in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

Aside from different expectations from creative individuals, Chinese and Americansalso have different expectations about certain social groups. Rudowicz and Hui (1998)showed that Chinese people (from Hong Kong) identified creative achievement withfinancial and political accomplishments rather than with aesthetic or artistic ones.Thus, when responding to the request to nominate a person from Hong Kong knownfor outstanding creativity, they listed businessmen, fashion designers, and politiciansas the most creative. The next on the list were film directors, actors, popular singers,

299


and architects; writers, artists, and scientists were rarely nominated. Chinese universityundergraduates from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan considered both his-torical and modern politicians, scientists, and inventors as most representative of crea-tive people; they rarely nominated artists, writers, and composers (Yue & Rudowicz,2002). It seems that Chinese people place a great deal more emphasis on the creator’ssocial influence, status, fame, and contribution to society than on contribution toculture. Such beliefs are consistent with Chinese giving high evaluations based on aperson’s prestige, and with a high level of respect for authority (Bond & Lee, 1981).

One important caution is that studies of implicit beliefs still rely on self-reports.People’s insights into their own beliefs may not be highly articulated. To give anexample, Lim, Plucker and Im (2002) investigated implicit beliefs about intelligencein Korean samples. When measured in a more traditional way (rating differentbehaviors as to how they relate to intelligence), Korean beliefs seemed to divergegreatly from American beliefs. Similar to studies on Chinese beliefs about creativity,Koreans highly emphasized social harmony. When implicit beliefs were measured byhaving participants rate profiles of fictional people; however, the results mirroredcommon Western beliefs. It is possible that nuances in measurement, accuracy, andself-insight may result in the appearance of more divergence that actually exists.

A product is the external expression of its creator. From the research above, wecan see that people are likely to expect the same features from product as from acreative person. Americans expect their products to be aesthetic and humorous, thatis, they are more open to appreciate a wider range of creativity and are more sensi-tive to the sense of humor in a product. They may prefer products that challengesocietal norms, truisms, and assumptions to some degree. Chinese people, on theother hand, are more likely to appreciate a product that conforms more to culturalnorms and benefits or improves the society. Their views on product creativity aremore influenced by the theme of the work and creator’s status.

CONCLUSIONSBy reviewing and comparing the similarities and differences between Americans and

Chinese in defining and evaluating creative products, we can draw a clearer picture oftwo points: how American and Chinese evaluate creative products, as well as what theyexpect from creative products. Do people under different cultural contexts have a uni-versal understanding about creative products? What kind of creative products do theyappreciate? What characteristics of creativity do they expect from a product?

To explore the first point, we first reviewed definitions of creativity in bothAmerica and China based on implicit theory and explicit theory. Although mostresearch suggested there is a universal understanding of creativity, when judging cre-ativity of a product, we believe that differences are more evident between Americansand Chinese. The two cultures may agree with each other on some characteristics,but the meaning of these characteristics might differ from culture to culture.

To address the second point, we first reviewed assessment methods in Americaand China under three categories: expert ratings, layperson ratings, and scale-basedratings. Although expert ratings are traditionally held to be the standard, and are not

300


interchangeable with novice ratings, we posit that layperson ratings may be the mostrelevant for cross-cultural investigations. Because creativity beliefs originate from thecustoms, traditions, and values of a culture, unfiltered by expert or professionalknowledge, they are mainly reflected in layperson attitudes (Hempel & Sue-Chan,2010). However, cross-cultural research on what average people think about creativeproducts is still rare. Therefore, to ascertain what Americans and Chinese expect fromcreative products, we examined previous research from the viewpoint of culturalcontext and Americans and Chinese beliefs about creative people. Studies indicatethat Americans say they expect products to be aesthetically pleasing, humorous,novel, and even groundbreaking, whereas Chinese appreciate a product with moreclass and popularity that is consistent with traditional and social norms.

This review suggests several future studies that can be conducted to better investi-gate the intersection the creative product, laypersons, and culture. If product creativityis defined as the subjective judgment of a product that may elicit an emotionalresponse based on a rater’s preferences, product evaluation might be different when itis owned than when it is visited. A product can be considered creative only in relationto a certain time and a certain group of reference by adopting a communal perspectiveon creativity (Gl�aveanu, 2010b). People with different goals, different knowledge, anddifferent appraisals of what is happening will inevitably vary in how they experienceand value the world (Siemer, Mauss & Gross, 2007). Given that participants asked toassess a creative product may not see it at the same level, future studies should distin-guish these two possible situations. In the case of product creativity, it is important toexplore the useful features in relation to the people who would desire and would liketo purchase them, such as customers, rather than creators, experts, or critics.

There is a dearth of specific discussions of the perception and evaluation of the cre-ative product across cultures. Although some literature within the psychology of crea-tivity and information processing has highlighted factors that influence creativeproduct assessment, there remains much be explored. Although various factors thatmay influence an individual’s judgment have been considered previously (e.g.,experience, prior knowledge, personality, environment, priming, or expectation), mostdomain discussions focus on people’s skill, aptitudes, traits, propensities, and motiva-tions. Such abilities contribute to the performance aspect of creativity, but not neces-sarily to the creative product itself. As Baer (2010) suggested, most of the methodscommonly used have approached creativity via features theoretically related to creativ-ity, rather than assessing creative products directly. Exploring how people evaluatecreative products and what they desire from creative products still requires study.

In past research, similarities in aesthetic judgment have been found across Easternand Western cultures, rather than specifically between Chinese and Americans. AsChina and America represent typical cultures of the East and West and have manysimilarities in geography and social diversity, more research between the twocultures should be explored, particularly in the similarity and differences in howcreative products are evaluated. We broadly suggest that to understand creativitycross-culturally, we need to at least entertain the possibility that it may take anumber of forms (Westwood & Low, 2003).

301


REFERENCESAaker, J., & Schmitt, B. (2001). Culture-dependent assimilation and differentiation of the self. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 561.

Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.

Amabile, T. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393–399.

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Amabile, T.M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S.C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction,and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6–21.

Averill, J., Chon, K., & Hahn, D. (2001). Emotions and creativity, east and west. Asian Journal of Social Psy-chology, 4, 165–183.

Axelsson, €O. (2007). Individual differences in preferences to photographs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,and the Arts, 1, 61.

Baer, J. (2010). Is Creativity Domain Specific? In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbookof creativity (pp. 321–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barboza, D. (2010, August 15). China passes Japan as second-largest economy. The New York Times. Availablefrom: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/business/global/16yuan.html. [Last accessed 24 July 2012].

Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478.

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behavior: Canthe big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90–97.

Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.

Berlyne, D. (1976). The new experimental aesthetics and the problem of classifying works of art. ScientificAesthetics, 1, 85–106.

Besemer, S. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judging instrument. Journal of Cre-ative Behavior, 20, 115–126.

Besemer, S. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison amongproducts – Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 333–346.

Besemer, S.P. (2000). Creative product analysis to foster innovation. Design Management Journal (Former Ser-ies), 11, 59–64.

Besemer, S., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument.In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367–389). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Besemer, S., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in anAmerican sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.

Besemer, S., & Treffinger, D. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 15, 158–178.

Beversdorf, D.Q., Hughes, J.D., Steinberg, B.A., Lewis, L.D., & Heilman, K.M. (1999). Noradrenergic modula-tion of cognitive flexibility in problem solving. NeuroReport, 10, 2763.

Bond, M.H., & Lee, P.W.H. (1981). Face saving in Chinese culture: A disscussion and experimental study ofHong Kong students. In A.Y.C. King & R.P.L. Lee (Eds.), Social life and development in Hong Kong (pp.288–305). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Briley, D.A., & Aaker, J.L. (2006). When does culture matter? Effects of personal knowledge on the correctionof culture-based judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 395–408.

Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in drawings ofgeometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 171.

Cheung, W.M., Tse, S.K., & Tsang, W.H.H. (2001). Development and validation of the Chinese creative writ-ing scale for primary school students in Hong Kong. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 249–260.

Chuang, Yi. (n.d). In Xinhua dictionary. Available from: http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/185267.html. [Lastaccessed 24 July 2012].

302


Chuang Zao, Li. (n.d). In Xinhua dictionary. Available from: http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/185857.html. [Lastaccessed 21 April 2012].

Cropley, A.J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Abingdon, Oxon:Routledge.

Cropley, D.H., & Cropley, A. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity. InJ.C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cropley, D.H., & Kaufman, J.C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: empirical validation of the CreativeSolution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS). Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 119–137.

Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C., & Cropley, A.J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation management.Journal of Technology, Management, and Innovation, 6, 13–29.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In R.J. Stern-berg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 81, 728.

Erez, M., & Nouri, R. (2010). Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Managementand Organization Review, 6, 351–370.

Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B., & Smith, S.M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Getzels, J.W. (1975). Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 9, 12.

Gilson, L.L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychologyof Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 21–28.

Gl�aveanu, V.P. (2010a). Creativity in context: The ecology of creativity evaluations and practices in an artisticcraft. Psychological Studies, 55, 339–350.

Gl�aveanu, V.P. (2010b). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology, 16, 147.

Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologies, 5, 444–454.

Hallahan, M., Lee, F., & Herzog, T. (1997). It’s not just whether you win or lose, it’s also where you play thegame. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 768–778.

Heine, S.J., Takemoto, T., Moskalenko, S., Lasaleta, J., & Henrich, J. (2008). Mirrors in the head: Culturalvariation in objective self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 879.

Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original andaltered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117–131.

Hempel, P.S., & Sue-Chan, C. (2010). Culture and the assessment of creativity. Management and OrganizationReview, 6, 415–435.

Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Consensual assessment. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 346–359.

Hennessey, B., Kim, G., Guomin, Z., & Weiwei, S. (2008). A multi-cultural application of the consensualassessment technique. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 18, 87–100.

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feel-ings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132.

Hong, Y., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructiv-ist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709.

Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Product creativity: Conceptual model, measurement and characteristics.Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7, 395–412.

Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfac-tion and purchasability. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 19, 223–240.

Horng, J.S., & Lin, L. (2009). The development of a scale for evaluating creative culinary products. CreativityResearch Journal, 21, 54–63.

Hsieh, Y.J., & Scammon, D.L. (1993). Cultural and economic antecedents to evolving consumer concerns inTaiwan. Journal of Consumer Policy, 16, 61–78.

Im, S., & Workman, J., Jr. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-tech-nology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68, 114–132.

303


Iwao, S., Child, I.L., & Garcia, M. (1969). Further evidence of agreement between Japanese and Americanesthetic evaluations. Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 11–15.

Iyengar, S.S., & Lepper, M.R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic moti-vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.

Jawecki, G., F€uller, J., & Gebauer, J. (2011). A comparison of creative behaviours in online communitiesacross cultures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 144–156.

Jiang, W. [Producer, Director, Writer]. (2010). Let the bullets fly. China: Beijing Bu Yi Le Hu Film Company.

Kaufman, J.C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.

Kaufman, J.C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? CreativityResearch Journal, 24, 83–91.

Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cole, J., & Sexton, J. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using theConsensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171–178.

Kaufman, J.C., Plucker, J.A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.

Kim, H.S., & Drolet, A. (2003). Choice and self-expression: A cultural analysis of variety-seeking. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 85, 373–382.

Kim, U.E., Triandis, H.C., Ka�gitc�ibas�i, C� .E., Choi, S.C.E., & Yoon, G.E. (1994). Individualism and collectivism:Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kozbelt, A., & Seeley, W. (2007). Integrating art historical, psychological, and neuroscientific explanations ofartists’ advantages in drawing and perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 80.

Lau, S., Hui, A., & Ng, G. (2004). Creativity: When east meets west. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Lee, S., Lee, J., & Youn, C.-Y. (2005). A variation of CAT for measuring creativity in business products.Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 15, 143–153.

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 (pp. 25). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Li, B. (2007). The composition and realization of the value of creative products. Contemporary EconomicResearch, 9, 27–30 (in Chinese).

Li, Q. (2011). China’s new countryside construction from the view of Israeli Kibbutz. Journal of ShaanxiInstitute of Education, 27, 6–9 (in Chinese).

Lim, W., Plucker, J., & Im, K. (2002). We are more alike than we think we are: Implicit theories of intelli-gence with a Korean sample. Intelligence, 20, 185–208.

Lin, X. (2000). Creativity assessment. In L. Mao, Y. Guo, L. Chen & X. Lin (Eds.), Creativity research (pp.264–304). Taipei, Taiwan: Taibei Psycho Press (in Chinese).

Lubart, T. (2010). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.),Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 265). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lubart, T., & Sternberg, R. (1998). Creativity across time and place: Life span and cross-cultural perspectives.High Ability Studies, 9, 59–74.

Maheswaran, D., & Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on adprocessing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 66–73.

Mao, L., Guo, Y., Chen, L., & Lin, X. (2000). Creativity research. Taibei: Taibei Psycho Press (in Chinese).

Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-tion. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Murdock, M.C., & Ganim, R.M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 27, 57–70.

Ng, A.K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Hong Kong: Prentice Hall.

Niu, W. (2006). Development of creativity research in Chinese societies: A comparison of Mainland China,Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbookof creativity (pp. 374–394). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 36, 225–241.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The east and the west.Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 269–288.

304


O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S.P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative productsemantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 267–278.

O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. (1999). Creative products. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 413–422.

O’Quin, K., Besemer, S., & Buffalo, N. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric forresults-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 34–44.

Paletz, S., & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness intwo product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 286.

Paletz, S.B.F., Peng, K., & Li, S. (2011). In the world or in the head: External and internal implicit theories ofcreativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 89–93.

Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talentedstudents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.

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.

Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch, 47, 273–290.

Rudowicz, E. (2004). Creativity among Chinese people: beyond Western perspective. In S. Lau, A. Hui & G.Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When east meets west (pp. 55–86). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Social Behavior& Personality, 12, 139–157.

Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1998). Hong Kong Chinese people’s views of creativity. Gifted Education Interna-tional, 13, 159–174.

Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X. (2000). Concepts of creativity: Similarities and differences among mainland, HongKong and Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 175–192.

Runco, M.A., & Bahleda, M.D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journalof Creative Behavior, 20, 93–98.

Schwartz, S.H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 456–497.

Siemer, M., Mauss, I., & Gross, J. (2007). Same situation-different emotions: How appraisals shape ouremotions. Emotion, 7, 592–600.

Silvia, P. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aestheticemotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139–161.

Silvia, P.J., & Berg, C. (2011). Finding movies interesting: How appraisals and expertise influence theaesthetic experience of film. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 73–88.

Simonton, D.K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Song, X., & Shi, J. (2005). A consensual technique for creativity assessment. Advances in Psychological Science,13, 739–744.

Stein, M.I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 36, 311–322.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 49, 607.

Sternberg, R.J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.

Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C., & Pretz, J. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds ofcreative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. NewYork: Free Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tallberg, N. (2007). A Development on Systems Reflective Aesthetic Fluency. In R.P. H€am€al€ainen & E. Saari-nen (Eds.), Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life (p. 207). Helsinki, Finland: Systems Analy-sis Laboratory.

305


Tan, Y. (2005). Product creativity assessment based on consumer satisfaction (Master’s thesis). Hunan Uni-versity, Changsha, China (in Chinese).

Torrance, E. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature ofcreativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tsang, A.S.L., & Prendergast, G. (2009). Does culture affect evaluation expressions? A cross-cultural analysisof Chinese and American computer game reviews. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 686–707.

Tse, D.K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D.A. (1988). Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of execu-tives’ choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal of Marketing, 52, 81–95.

Wang, Z., Xie, P., & Chen, J. (2007). Factor analysis and positive research for development of creative indus-try in city. China Industrial Economy, 8, 49–57.

Westwood, R., & Low, D.R. (2003). The multicultural muse. International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-ment, 3, 235.

White, A., Shen, F., & Smith, B. (2002). Judging advertising creativity using the creative product semanticscale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 241–253.

White, A., & Smith, B. (2001). Assessing advertising creativity using the creative product semantic scale. Jour-nal of Advertising Research, 41, 27–34.

Winston, A., & Cupchik, G. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experiencedviewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 114.

Wonder, J., & Blake, J. (1992). Creativity east and west: Intuition vs. logic? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26,172–185.

Xu, X.D. (2007). The effect of difference heterogeneous groups in cooperative learning on technological crea-tivity for vocational high school’s student (Master’s thesis). Taiwan Tech University (in Chinese).

Yin, Y. (2011). Creativity model of resources in creative industries and empirical study. Science & TechnologyProgress and Policy, 28, 148–151 (in Chinese).

Yue, X.D. (2004). Whoever is influential is creative: How Chinese undergraduates choose creative people inChinese societies. Psychological Reports, 94, 1235–1249.

Yue, X.D., & Leung, K. (2003). Values for creativity: A study among undergraduates in Hong Kong andGuangzhou. New Horizons in Education, 47, 1–5 (in Chinese).

Yue, X.D., & Rudowicz, E. (2002). Perception of the most creative Chinese by undergraduates in Beijing,Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Taipei. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 88–104.

Zeitchik, S., & Pierson, D. (2011, July 3). Reel China: It’s rough out West for Chinese films. Los Angeles Times,Available from: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-china-blockbuster-20110703,0,6297335.story. [Last accessed 17 January 2012].

Zha, P., Walczyk, J.J., Griffith-Ross, D.A., Tobacyk, J.J., & Walczyk, D.F. (2006). The impact of culture andindividualism-collectivism on the creative potential and achievement of American and Chinese adults.Creativity Research Journal, 18, 355–366.

Zhang, W. (2008). The influence of perception of product creativity to customer loyalty (Master’s thesis).Central South University, Changsha, China (in Chinese).

Zhang, J. (2009). China creativity industry development report. China Economic Publishing House. Availablefrom: http://www.creativeindustry.org.cn (in Chinese). [ Last accessed 22 November 2012].

Lan Lan, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics

James C. Kaufman, California State University at San Bernardino

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James C. Kaufman, Department ofPsychology, California State University, San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA92407. E-mail: [email protected]

306


Documents

American and Chinese Similarities and Differences in ... and Chinese Similarities and Differences in ... American and Chinese explicit ... One trend is an increase in research on creativity