Cultural Differences in Thinking outside of Box: The Influence of Context-Independent versus Context-Dependent Thinking Styles on Creative Task Performance
Saved in:
| Title: | Cultural Differences in Thinking outside of Box: The Influence of Context-Independent versus Context-Dependent Thinking Styles on Creative Task Performance |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Wenxia Guo (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(2). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Cultural Differences, Creative Thinking, Context Effect, Cognitive Style, Creativity, Task Analysis, Individual Differences, Performance |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jocb.70017 |
| ISSN: | 0022-0175 2162-6057 |
| Abstract: | Previous research has examined cross-cultural influences on creative performance. Findings of this line of inquiry are, however, not consistent. While some scholars suggest that individuals from Western cultures, who tend to apply context-independent thinking styles, produce more novel ideas given a cognitive task than individuals from Eastern cultures, who tend to apply context-dependent thinking styles, others do not find such differences. Our research attempts to explore this dilemma and identify conditions that drive cross-cultural differences in creativity. Overall, our findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in creativity exist, but they may be contingent on the nature of the cognitive tasks that may restrict individuals' cognitive flexibility. In particular, the current research shows that the more the cognitive tasks fit individual differences (context-independent vs. context-dependent thinking styles), the better the task performance. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1474473 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF6ZmvkGrXD8MlIXTHPG3xxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIBpMKQfPkC3oYbNtAIBEICBm1cyYX-Vvf9Azs9zLtfWMfXx9dBR-ki0FRI_2itEudUH4A16-5iFvfVY4zqv28pwa99E7RX1vSAEXcidYfJ2R_qUgL3tCeWDJfyR16SbNy4uIpGcbHTK_vV6540W3rwsQz7QKJaB5L0-r3VxARoE27utNmMWPJ-fyMSs5pNS9lWe8jNoqZwKcauWW80Rq_Ck5LvuVt1Bm5qpQfXE Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0186049512;3u701jun.25;2025Jun23.03:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186049512-1">Cultural Differences in Thinking Outside of Box: The Influence of Context‐Independent Versus Context‐Dependent Thinking Styles on Creative Task Performance </title> <p>Previous research has examined cross‐cultural influences on creative performance. Findings of this line of inquiry are, however, not consistent. While some scholars suggest that individuals from Western cultures, who tend to apply context‐independent thinking styles, produce more novel ideas given a cognitive task than individuals from Eastern cultures, who tend to apply context‐dependent thinking styles, others do not find such differences. Our research attempts to explore this dilemma and identify conditions that drive cross‐cultural differences in creativity. Overall, our findings suggest that cross‐cultural differences in creativity exist, but they may be contingent on the nature of the cognitive tasks that may restrict individuals' cognitive flexibility. In particular, the current research shows that the more the cognitive tasks fit individual differences (context‐independent vs. context‐dependent thinking styles), the better the task performance.</p> <p>Keywords: creative task performance; creativity; cross‐cultural; independent and interdependent self‐construal; thinking styles</p> <p>Creativity is important for the development of human civilization and plays a key role in education, society, work, and life (Tang [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref1">76</reflink>]). The impact of cross‐cultural factors on creativity or creative performance (we in this article refer to creative performance and creativity interchangeably) is manifested in the way individuals from across cultures show differences in preferred creative processes and creative processing modes. For example, usefulness or utility is considered more important in collectivistic cultures, whereas novelty is considered more important in individualistic cultures (Shao et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref2">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Literature on cross‐cultural research shows that culture shapes individuals' values, behavior, perceptions of oneself, and information processing (Hofstede [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref3">33</reflink>]; Resnick [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref4">64</reflink>]; Triandis [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref5">77</reflink>]). Culture, as a factor affecting creative performance (e.g., new idea generation), has been studied (Averill et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]), but cultural influences in creative performance remain under explored (Rinne et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]). Empirical research on the relationship between culture and creative performance has thus far yielded no consistent results (Yi et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref8">84</reflink>]). Specifically, while cross‐cultural differences in individual creativity—particularly between Eastern and Western cultures—have been examined, empirical evidence remains mixed, making it unclear whether one culture promotes more creativity than another (Barth and Stadtmann [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]). While some scholars follow Ng's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref10">56</reflink>]) famous suggestion of Western superiority in creativity (e.g., Kaufman [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref11">39</reflink>]), most interpret the existing empirical evidence as mixed (e.g., Miron‐Spektor and Paletz [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>]; Palmiero et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref13">63</reflink>]; Xie and Paik [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref14">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, researchers have made initial attempts to understand the conditions and mechanisms through which culture influences creative performance. For example, Paletz and Peng ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref15">62</reflink>]) explored the potential advantage of dialectical thinking in Eastern cultures compared to western cultures as an explanation for cross‐cultural differences in creative performance. However, their findings did not consistently support a direct connection between dialectical thinking and enhanced creativity under all circumstances. Additionally, research by Saeki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref16">69</reflink>]) found that American college students scored significantly higher on creative thinking tests than their Japanese counterparts. More recently, a meta‐analysis by Barth and Stadtmann ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]) identified a statistically significant small‐to‐medium effect, suggesting that western individuals exhibit higher levels of creativity than eastern individuals, with this difference being more pronounced among older participants. Extant literature, therefore, does not offer convincing evidence as to why and how cross‐cultural factors affect creative performance. We address this gap in the current research by examining the influence of cross‐cultural thinking styles on creative performance.</p> <p>Cross‐cultural research shows meaningful cultural differences in terms of cognitive and motivational processes that lead to differences in creativity (Güss et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). Culture shapes thinking styles (Fazel et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]; Ji et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]; Nisbett [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref21">58</reflink>]). Individuals from different cultures (e.g., eastern or <emph>collectivist</emph> versus western or <emph>individualist</emph> culture) behave or think distinctively due to the influence of thinking styles that are shaped by shared values (Hofstede [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>]; Resnick [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref23">64</reflink>]). For example, studies have shown that Americans have better creative abilities than Chinese, whereas Chinese have better reasoning skills than Americans (e.g., Wong and Niu [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref24">81</reflink>]). When making a judgment or evaluation, the <emph>collectivist</emph> is likely to consider the entire relationship within a context, while the <emph>individualist</emph> is likely to consider the focal object without the influence of the context. This suggests that <emph>collectivists</emph> tend to pay more attention to contextual details when thinking, whereas <emph>individualists</emph> may focus more on objects (at various angles or perspectives) instead of contextual details when thinking.</p> <p>Further, thinking styles influence outcomes such as creative performance (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]). Outcomes related to goal or central‐related features are likely the result of <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking salient in individualist cultures, whereas outcomes related to peripheral‐related features tend to be the result of <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking salient in collectivist cultures (Trope and Liberman [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref26">78</reflink>]). Research suggests that <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking can result in greater creative idea generation than <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking. For example, Smith ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref27">72</reflink>]) shows that when individuals think abstractly, they are less likely to fixate and thus are more creative than those who think concretely. Accordingly, we suggest that <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking, more salient in individualistic societies, generally leads to greater creativity in terms of novelty than does <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking, more salient in collectivistic societies.</p> <p>The existing cross‐culture research on the mechanisms through which thinking styles across culture influence creative performance is limited. Cognitive flexibility is considered one of the pathways for creative performance (De Dreu et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]). Also, given that creativity is context dependent (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]), our paper addresses the calls for research that unravels the conditions associated with different thinking styles which result in varied degrees of cognitive flexibility that help foster creativity (Ionescu [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). We propose that person‐task fit, which is regarded as the congruence between individual competencies and the task requirements (Caldwell and O'Reilly III [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]; Goetz and Wald [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]; Storme et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref34">74</reflink>]) is a potential contingency that explains differences in creative performances across cultures. We argue that cognitive tasks that fit either <emph>context‐independent</emph> or <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking styles lead to better creative performance than those cognitive tasks that do not fit a person's thinking styles.</p> <p>The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. In the first part, we develop the hypotheses that link cultural aspects of thinking (<emph>context‐independent</emph> versus <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking) with creativity. We then develop hypotheses that explain the role of task context (contextualized versus de‐contextualized task) in the above relationship. We then test our hypotheses across five experimental studies and conclude with a discussion on the implications of our findings, study limitations, and areas of future research.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-2">Theoretical Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-3">Creativity</hd> <p>Creativity is considered as the generation of ideas, insights, or problem solutions that are both novel and useful (Amabile [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]) and hence is the product of "novel and appropriate" work (Fang et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref36">23</reflink>]). The importance of creativity to social organizations and consumer behavior is being increasingly emphasized (Mumford and Gustafson [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref37">54</reflink>]; Basadur and Hausdorf [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]). Individuals across cultures also view creativity differently, which in turn may influence certain types of innovation outputs (Bendapudi et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]), given that creativity is an important condition for innovation (Lu et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]). Thus, a common question frequently asked by both researchers and lay individuals is what makes thinking creative. Based on the definition of creativity that includes originality and appropriateness, thinking is creative if it results in original and useful ideas, solutions, or insights (Runco and Charles [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref41">68</reflink>]). Many factors contribute to creativity such as personal dispositions (Baas et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]), external evaluations and rewards (Eisenberger and Rhoades [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]), situationally induced motivational orientation (e.g., approach versus avoidance; Förster et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]), or social norms (Muralidharan and Pathak [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref45">55</reflink>]; Runco [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref46">67</reflink>]). Creativity is thus perceived because of human cognitive processes such as retrieval and the formation of new associations during a case of problem solving (Finke et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>]). Studies have shown that cognitive flexibility is used as an underlying mechanism of creativity and positively relates to exceptional creative achievement (Carson et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]; Baas et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; Ritter and Mostert [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref50">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Cognitive flexibility is influenced by factors such as knowledge, environment, and thinking styles. Individuals use a variety of knowledge to make new connections among distant ideas (Shafto and Coley [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref51">70</reflink>]). For instance, children who live in rural areas use more ecological references to augment taxonomic relations for organizing folk biological knowledge than urban children, suggesting the importance of direct experience with plants and animals for the ability to reason flexibly about them (Coley et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]). Further, reasoning (or thinking styles) has an influence on cognitive flexibility. For example, Nijstad et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref53">57</reflink>]) assert that analytical thinking primarily leads to the development of ideas that are highly accessible and closely related to existing concepts and ideas (and thus less original), whereas defocused and holistic thinking results in the generation of associations that are more remotely related to existing ideas (thus more original). In sum, while cognitive flexibility influences creativity, it may be influenced by the cultural environment where a person grows up, accessible knowledge, and styles of thinking.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-4">Styles of Thinking and Creativity</hd> <p>Extant research has shown that social information processing is strongly influenced by the individual either defining himself or herself as an autonomous entity or as related to a collective of individuals. An autonomous individual tends to process stimuli without being affected by the context in which they appear, whereas a collective individual tends to process stimuli in respect of their relation to the given context in which they appear (Hannover and Kühnen [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>]). These mental representations have been linked to cultural differences between individualistic and collectivistic societies (Markus and Kitayama [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref55">49</reflink>]). Research shows that an individual from individualistic societies (common in western cultures) is likely to form an independent view of the self, where the self is construed as separate from the social contexts, whereas one from collectivistic societies (common in Eastern cultures) has an interdependent view of the self, where the self is construed as embedded in social contexts (Liang and Cherian [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The above mental representations are also reflected in studies that have compared ways individuals in different societies think. Individualistic societies tend to use abstract thinking which is "a tendency to mentally isolate objects or their attributes and generalize across contexts on the basis of conceptual similarity", and collectivistic societies are likely to apply concrete thinking "a tendency to perceive things as part of the real‐life settings" (Cousins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>], 124). Individuals from individualistic societies are considered to have analytical thinking styles where they perceive objectives with distinct properties to be detached from their context, whereas those from collectivistic societies are considered to have holistic thinking styles where they perceive that the object and its context are interrelated (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Kühnen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref59">42</reflink>]) have suggested that the above two different selves formed in different cultures can influence human behavior through two separate routes, semantic and procedural. In the semantic route, the semantic knowledge of the self is applied to evaluate the self or others. In the procedural route, different procedural styles of thinking are applied to cognitive tasks. Hannover and Kühnen ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]) further use the semantic‐procedural interface model of the self to describe the different cognitive mechanisms people from western culture (versus Eastern culture) use when processing information. This model suggests that activation of the independent view of self‐related knowledge may lead to a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, which tends to detach objects from the context and from one another (Nisbett et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref61">59</reflink>]). Defocused processing may help generate ideas that are remotely related to a stimulus or existing tasks (Nijstad et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]). Further, the <emph>context‐independent</emph> style facilitates analytic thinking, which focuses on logic and problem solving, leading to improvements towards a new position that is different from the previous state (Von Franz [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref63">80</reflink>]). Thus, we suggest that a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking may result in ideas that are less associated with a particular context. As a broad association beyond existing tasks that leads to more original and novel responses (Dreisbach and Goschke [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref64">18</reflink>]), the context‐independent style of thinking may lead to more cognitive flexibility which, in turn, may more likely result in unusual responses (more originality).</p> <p>By contrast, activation of the interdependent view of self‐related knowledge may foster a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, which tends to consider the entire meaning or details of context (Nisbett et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref65">59</reflink>]). The focus on details in the context leads to generated ideas that are highly related to a stimulus or existing tasks (Nijstad et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]). In other words, such individuals might pursue creativity by accessing insights through rediscovery and by leveraging existing knowledge (Mehta and Dahl [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref67">51</reflink>]). Accordingly, we suggest that a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking may result in less cognitive flexibility, which, in turn, is less likely to come up with unusual responses (less originality) to a stimulus and instead may result in ideas that are highly related to a particular context. Formally, we propose the following hypotheses.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-5">1a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Context‐independent style of thinking leads to better creative task performance in terms of ideas that are less restraint to the task context (i.e., more thinking outside of box)</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-6">1b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Context‐dependent style of thinking leads to better creative task performance in terms of ideas that are more restraint to the task context (i.e., more thinking inside of box)</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-7">Person‐Task Fit (Contextualized vs. Decontextualized Tasks)</hd> <p>As we argued previously, creative task performance is context dependent. Context‐centered approaches to studying creativity take both individual and environmental factors into account (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]). From an environment point of view, P–E (Person–Environment) fit is broadly defined as the compatibility between the individual and the work environment that happens when individual personality traits and environmental characteristics match well (Kristof‐Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]). P–E fit theories argue that individuals working in an environment (e.g., a job, a team, or an organization) that suits their personal traits and satisfies their needs will show better performance than those who are or experience a misfit (Edwards and Shipp [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>]). This fit has also been conceptualized as 'similarity, need‐satisfaction, and demand‐ability' match (Kristof‐Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref71">41</reflink>]). Building on this insight, we focus specifically on <emph>person‐task</emph> (P–T) fit, which has not been studied much in P–E fit scholarship (Finucane et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]; Wronska et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref73">82</reflink>]), as a condition to provide a nuanced understanding on the influence of thinking styles on creativity.</p> <p>P–T fit refers to the relationship between an individual's characteristics and those of the tasks that are performed at work (Kristof‐Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>]). As per extant research, this relationship is understood through two conceptualizations: first is when the individuals' knowledge, skills, and abilities are aligned with the demands of the task, and second is when individuals' needs and desires are met with the tasks they do (Edwards [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]). Research has found that the P–T fit influences outcomes positively (Edwards [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref76">20</reflink>]) and enables individuals to be more creative (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref77">40</reflink>]). P–T fit also relates to the type of cognition and nature of the task or problem that the individual is trying to address. In examining a task in a research and development context, Cheng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref78">10</reflink>]) showed that individuals with conforming or judging‐type cognition performed well when assigned tasks to solve close‐ended problems, whereas those with originality and intuitive‐type cognition performed well on self‐initiated tasks to solve open‐ended problems.</p> <p>In analyzing the influence of thinking styles of individuals on creativity, we argue that this influence is contingent on the nature of the problem which decides the extent of cognitive flexibility required. Problems that need to be solved are context specific. Some are more contextualized cognitive tasks which result in less cognitive flexibility, while others are decontextualized cognitive tasks, which lead to more cognitive flexibility. The different nature of the cognitive tasks requires either <emph>context‐dependent</emph> or <emph>context‐independent</emph> (thinking processing styles, e.g., Kühnen and Oyserman [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref79">43</reflink>]). For example, Kühnen and Oyserman [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>], in their study, provided participants with two different cognitive tasks: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) identifying the small letters requiring ignoring the context (decontextualized context) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>) identifying the large letters requiring focusing on the context (contextualized context). The results of their study suggest that participants with interdependent self‐knowledge process information within a contextualized context faster than they would process information within a decontextualized context, but participants with independent self‐knowledge process information within a decontextualized context faster than they would process information within a contextualized context. The above finding indicates that the fit between <emph>decontextualized</emph> (versus <emph>contextualized</emph>) cognitive tasks and <emph>context‐independent</emph> (versus <emph>context‐dependent</emph>) style of thinking leads to better creative performance. Further, as discussed earlier, individuals accustomed to <emph>context‐interdependent</emph> styles of thinking may pursue creativity by accessing existing knowledge in the context, whereas individuals accustomed to <emph>context‐independent</emph> styles of thinking may come up with novel solutions (Mehta and Dahl [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref83">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the marketplace, it is common for companies to extend their existing product lines (contextualized tasks) or develop completely new product ideas (decontextualized tasks). Individuals who view themselves as more individualistic or self‐independent tend to consider creativity as the action of bringing something new into the task which did not exist (Mason [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref84">50</reflink>]). In contrast, individuals who view themselves as more collective or self‐interdependent are more likely to consider creativity as the process of modification, adaptation, or renovation of something existing in a new transformed form (Tan [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref85">75</reflink>]). Therefore, we suggest that <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking will show higher levels of creativity when processing decontextualized cognitive tasks (e.g., developing new product ideas) than <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking when processing contextualized cognitive tasks (e.g., extending existing product lines). However, <emph>a context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking will show a higher level of creativity when processing contextualized cognitive tasks than <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking. Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. Formally, we propose the following hypotheses.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-8">2a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Context‐dependent style of thinking leads to better task fitting performance than context‐independent style of thinking when a task is contextualized</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-9">2b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Context‐independent style of thinking leads to better creative task performance than context‐dependent style of thinking when a task is decontextualized</emph>.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun25/jocb70017-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb70017-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Conceptual model." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-11">Methodology</hd> <p>Five experiments were conducted to test our proposed hypotheses. Studies 1a and1b were designed to examine hypotheses H1a and H1b. Experiments 2a and 2b were conducted to test hypotheses H2a and H2b by priming styles of thinking. Finally, Study 3 is a 2 × 2 design to test hypotheses H2a and H2b in the same study by using a scale to measure styles of thinking.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-12">STUDY 1 a</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-13">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>This study was a between‐subject design (styles of thinking: <emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>context‐dependent</emph>). In Burroughs and Glen Mick's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref86">7</reflink>]) research, participants were asked to generate solutions for a problem. In their experiment 1, they recruited 77 undergraduate students for two conditions (creative condition vs. control condition), so in Study 1a, we recruited 106 participants.</p> <p>Extant literature suggests that people from western (versus Eastern culture) are likely to apply different cognitive mechanisms (<emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, e.g., Hannover and Kühnen [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]; Nisbett et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref88">59</reflink>]) when they process information. Study 1a used culture (West vs. East) as a proxy of styles of thinking (<emph>Context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>Context‐dependent</emph>), conducted in North America (<emph>N</emph> = 55) and Asia (<emph>N</emph> = 51). In the condition of <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, participants were students from a large Asian university (19 males and 32 females; average age = 20.3). In the condition of <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, we conducted a study through the Qualtrics panel by recruiting participants who only speak English at home from North America (15 males and 40 females; average age = 49.2).</p> <p>Participants were shown the following scenario (Burroughs and Glen Mick [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref89">7</reflink>]) and were asked to generate solutions for this problem.</p> <p>Just suppose that you are going out to dinner one evening. You have moved into the area to take a new job. It is the annual company banquet held by your new employer and you are probably going to be called up front and introduced to the rest of the company by your new boss. You put on a black outfit and think you are all ready for dinner when, as you go to put on your shoes, you discover they are all scuffed up and the scuffs are noticeable. You go to the utility closet only to discover that you are almost completely out of shoe polish. This is the only pair of shoes you need to go with an outfit and there is no other outfit you can wear. You have 2 min before you must head to dinner if you are to be on time. Since you live in a residential area, all the stores in your part of town have already closed for the evening. You know of one shopping mall that is open, but it means an extra 5 miles of freeway driving. How would you respond to this problem?</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-14">Results</hd> <p>After having a close look at participants' thoughts, an obvious pattern was observed. That is, participants from an eastern culture (e.g., Asian culture) mainly focused on solutions like borrowing a pair of shoes from friends, neighbors, and so on, and this solution was more to fit in the context (the annual company banquet). However, participants from western culture (e.g., North American culture) mainly focused on solutions like covering the scuff with alternative materials such as sharpie, and this solution was less to fit in the context (the annual company banquet). Thoughts were coded by two coders individually based on either borrowing a pair of shoes (representing less thinking outside of the box; Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.98) or covering the scuff (representing more thinking outside of the box; Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.99).</p> <p>A chi‐squared analysis indicated that solutions of participants with a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking were mainly on covering the scuff than borrowing a pair of shoes [<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 106) = 29.15, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001; 51% vs. 5%]. In contrast, solutions of participants with a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking were mainly on borrowing a pair of shoes than covering the scuff [<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 106) = 14.84, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001; 51% vs. 15%]. This result indicated that solutions generated based on a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking were more context restrained than those solutions generated based on a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, thereby supporting hypotheses H1a and H1b.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-15">STUDY 1 b</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-16">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>The design of Study 1b was the same as Study 1a, with culture (west vs. east) as a proxy for the styles of thinking (<emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. s <emph>context‐dependent</emph>, respectively). In the condition of <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, participants were students from a large Asian university (12 males and 19 females; average age = 20.6). In the condition of <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, we recruited North American participants who only speak English at home through the Qualtrics panel (13 males and 29 females; average age = 42.8).</p> <p>In this study, participants were presented with possible scientific findings, and then, they were asked to generate five research questions adapted from Paletz and Peng ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref92">62</reflink>]). Participants were asked "pretend that you are a scientist who is studying monkey behavior in Africa. You see some monkeys eating dirt. Usually, they just eat leaves and fruits." For each research question, two coders coded fluency (the number of research questions) and the level of creativity on a five‐point scale (<emph>1</emph> = "not at all creative" where research questions were highly structured by the problem; <emph>5</emph> = "extremely creative" where research questions were not structured by the problem). For example, research questions such as "why are the monkeys eating dirt?" would be coded as "1", whereas research questions such as "what is environment like?" would be coded as "5". Then, an average was calculated by taking the total creativity score of each participant divided by the number of generated research questions. The reliability of coding from two coders was Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.82.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-17">Results</hd> <p>An independent‐sample <emph>T</emph> test indicated that participants with a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking showed a higher level of creativity or thinking outside of the box (<emph>M</emph> = 3.02, SD = 0.96) than participants with a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 2.40, SD = 0.98; <emph>t</emph> = 2.67, <emph>p</emph> = 0.009; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.970), which supported our hypotheses H1a and H1b.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of both Study 1a and Study 1b provide promising evidence of cross‐cultural differences in terms of idea generation for a cognitive task, which show completely different ways of solving problems. In eastern cultures where individuals are more likely to apply a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, solutions for a problem tend to focus on how to fit in the situation and the generated solutions (e.g., borrowing a pair of shoes) that are consistent with the style of thinking. Instead, in western cultures where individuals are more likely to apply a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, individuals attempt to find solutions without being constrained by the context or situation and the generated solutions (e.g., covering the scuff with alternative materials) that reflect their style of thinking.</p> <p>Combining the results of Study 1a and Study 1b, a common theme derived from the findings is that participants with a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking showed a higher tendency to think outside of the box (i.e., solutions are less bound by the context) than participants with a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking (i.e., solutions try to fit inside the box). The next two studies explore the influence of person‐task fit on creative performance. In particular, we examine the fit between two styles of thinking and task contexts (<emph>contextualized</emph> versus <emph>decontextualized</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-19">STUDIES 2a and 2b</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-20">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>Studies 2a and 2b were conducted to test hypotheses H2a and H2b in a marketing‐related context. Both studies were between‐group designs (styles of thinking: <emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>context‐dependent</emph>) with either a contextualized task (Study 2a; <emph>N</emph> = 71 with 39 males and 32 females; average age = 43.2) or a decontextualized task (Study 2b; <emph>N</emph> = 58 with 24 males and 34 females; average age = 39.1).</p> <p>Both studies were conducted through the Qualtrics panel. A priming technique was used for two styles of thinking. Priming different self‐construal can lead to different styles of thinking (Monga and John [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]). In particular, salient independent self‐construal (i.e., individualism) tends to result in <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking, while salient interdependent self‐construal (i.e., collectivism) more likely leads to <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking (Oyserman et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref94">61</reflink>]). In the <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking condition where independent self‐construal was primed, participants were asked to assume that their goal was to enjoy personal life ("enjoying their own life was what it is really all about"). Then, they were asked to write down some activities that could help achieve this goal. In the <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking condition where interdependent self‐construal was primed, participants were asked to assume that their goal was to enjoy relationships with their family or friends ("enjoying relationships with their family or friends was what your life is really all about"). They were asked to write down some activities that could help achieve this goal.</p> <p>Then, participants read a scenario related to product development by a swimming wear company, Kini, which sells a single product line: swimwear. In Study 2a (a contextualized task), participants read a scenario about developing a new item under an existing bikini product line and were asked to brainstorm possible new product ideas under its current product line (swimwear). In Study 2b (a decontextualized task), participants read a scenario about developing a completely new product beyond the current bikini product line and were asked to brainstorm possible new product ideas beyond its current product line (swimwear).</p> <p>The rationale behind the design of Study 2a and 2b is that the presence of an existing product line sets more limitations, and thus, the development of a new item is bound more to the context (existing product line). In contrast, the development of completely new products is free from the context.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-21">Results</hd> <p>Study 2a: We checked participant's thinking style after they were primed with either independent or interdependent self‐construal by asking them to indicate how they agree with the statement, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph>, 7 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>). The results showed that participants primed with interdependent self‐construal were more likely to agree with the statement than participants primed with independent self‐construal (<emph>M</emph> = 5.47 vs. <emph>M</emph> = 4.54; <emph>t</emph> = −2.49, <emph>p</emph> = 0.015). This indicated that participants primed with interdependent self‐construal (or collectivism) tend to have <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking style than participants primed with independent self‐construal (or individualism).</p> <p>The creativity of new items based on the contextualized task was evaluated based on the fit (1–5 scale) between the new item and the current product line (bikini swimming suit). If the new product idea has high fit such as "air swimwear," it was coded as "5"; while if the new product is completely unrelated to swimming wear such as "outwear", it was coded as "1". Thoughts were coded by two coders individually (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.71). An independent‐sample T test indicated that participants primed with <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking scored lower in terms of ideas that fit into the box or context (<emph>M</emph> = 2.05, SD = 1.10) than participants primed with <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 2.84, SD = 0.92; <emph>t</emph> = −3.31, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 1.568). This result supported our hypothesis H2a.</p> <p>Study 2b: We used the same item as Study 1b to test styles of thinking after participants were primed with either independent or interdependent self‐construal. The results indicated that participants primed with interdependent self‐construal were more likely to agree with the statement than participants primed with independent self‐construal (<emph>M</emph> = 5.12 vs. <emph>M</emph> = 4.30; <emph>t</emph> = −2.11, <emph>p =</emph> 0.039). The result was consistent with Study 1a, where participants primed with interdependent self‐construal (or collectivism) tend to have a context‐dependent thinking style than participants primed with independent self‐construal (or individualism).</p> <p>The creativity of the new product based on the decontextualized task was evaluated based on the degree of ideas outside of the box or context (beyond the current product line: bikini swimming suit) on a 1–5 scale. If the new product idea is completely related to swimming wear such as "swimsuit," it was coded as "1"; while if the new product is completely unrelated to swimming wear such as "diving equipment", it was coded as "5". Thoughts were coded by two coders individually (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.70). An independent‐sample T test indicated that participants primed with <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking scored higher in terms of ideas outside of box (<emph>M</emph> = 3.71, SD = 1.10) than participants primed with <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 3.06, SD = 1.16; <emph>t</emph> = 2.18, <emph>p</emph> = 0.033; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 1.127). This result supported our hypothesis H2b.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-22">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of Study 2a show that individuals with <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking are more suitable for the tasks that are bounded to certain contexts such as developing a new item under the current product line or for product line extension. However, individuals with <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking can perhaps maximize their performance under the tasks that are not bound to certain contexts such as developing a new product without considering the boundary of the current product line (Study 2b).</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-23">Study 3</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049512-24">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>Studies in group 3 were a 2 (styles of thinking: <emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>context‐dependent</emph>) × 2 (task type: a contextualized task vs. a decontextualized task) between‐group design (<emph>N</emph> = 134; average age = 35.01). Study 3 was also conducted through the Qualtrics pannel. In this study, we measured individualism vs. collectivism as a proxy of styles of thinking by using an established scale (Donthu and Yoo [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref95">17</reflink>]; Yoo and Donthu [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref96">85</reflink>]). We used five items such as "individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties", "group success is more important than individual success", and so on. We then used a median split (4.6) to divide participants into two groups: individualism vs. collectivism. We checked two groups' styles of thinking by using a well‐established scale with six items such as "it is more important to pay attention to the whole than its parts", "it is not possible to understand the parts without considering the whole picture", and so on. (Choi et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]). An independent samples <emph>T</emph> test was conducted on the measure of styles of thinking. Results indicated that participants in the individualism group tend to be more context‐independent thinking than participants in the collectivism group (<emph>M</emph> = 4.42 vs. <emph>M</emph> = 5.73; <emph>t</emph> = −7.79, <emph>p &lt;</emph> 0.001).</p> <p>Then, some participants were asked to complete a contextualized task by reading the message as such that of McDonald's which is searching for new slogans from its customers. Its old slogan is 'I'm Lovin It'. Please generate as many slogans for this product as you can. In this message, McDonald's original advertising slogan was in the context. Some participants were asked to complete a decontextualized task by reading the message as such "McDonald's is searching for new slogans from its customers. Please generate as many slogans for this product as you can" In this message, McDonald's original advertising slogan was not in the context.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-25">Manipulation Check</hd> <p>To check participant's task type, we asked one question "In the study, were you provided McDonald's slogan 'I'm Lovin It?' (yes or no)". We conducted a chi‐squared test. Participants who were provided a contextualized task more significantly selected "yes" than participants who were provided a decontextualized task (Pearson chi‐square <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001).</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-26">Results</hd> <p>As dependent variables (DV) were thoughts based on an open‐ended question by asking participants to generate advertising slogans for McDonald's, these thoughts were coded into two DVs: degree of creativity (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.64) and degree of fitting (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.75) by two individuals. For degree of creativity (1 = not at all creative; 5 = very creative), a few examples would be "Mc delicious" which was coded as 2 and "America's second home" which was coded as 5. For degree of fitting (1 = not fit 'I am Lovin it' at all; 5 = very fit 'I am Lovin it'), a few examples would be: "Good to the last bite" which was coded as 1; "Everyone loves it" which was coded as 5.</p> <p>We conducted two 2 × 2 ANOVA analyses with styles of thinking (<emph>context‐independent</emph> vs. <emph>context‐dependent</emph>) and task type (a contextualized task vs. a decontextualized task) as two inDVs and degree of creativity and degree of fitting as dependent variables, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-27">Degree of Creativity</hd> <p>2 × 2 ANOVA analysis indicated an overall significant effect (<emph>F</emph> = 3.82, <emph>p</emph> = 0.053). In particular, participants with <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking scored higher in terms of ideas that are outside the context or are more creative (<emph>M</emph> = 3.24, SD = 0.95) than participants with <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 2.41, SD = 0.94; F = 10.56, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002) when they were provided with a decontextualized task. This result further strengthens support for our hypothesis H2b.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-28">Degree of Fitting</hd> <p>2 × 2 ANOVA analysis showed an overall significant effect (<emph>F</emph> = 5.80, <emph>p</emph> = 0.017). Specifically, participants with <emph>context‐independent</emph> thinking scored lower in terms of ideas that fit into the box or context (<emph>M</emph> = 2.80, SD = 1.21) than participants with <emph>context‐dependent</emph> thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 3.39, SD = 1.18; <emph>F</emph> = 5.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.018) when they were provided with a contextualized task. This result further strengthens support for our hypothesis H2a.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-29">General Discussion</hd> <p>Overall P–T fit is strongly related to several outcomes, such as task performance (Caldwell and O'Reilly III [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref98">8</reflink>]), problem solving (Harinck et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref99">32</reflink>]), satisfaction (Hon and Rensvold [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref100">34</reflink>]), organizational commitment, and job performance (Kristof‐Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref101">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results (from five studies) of the current research indicate that while cultural differences (manifested in thinking styles) in creativity do exist, these differences are contingent on the P–T fit. Studies 1a and 1b show that in eastern cultures, where individuals are more likely to apply a <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, solutions for a problem tend to focus on how to fit in the situation and the generated solutions are consistent with the style of thinking. Instead, in western cultures where individuals are more likely to apply a <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, individuals attempt to find solutions without being constrained by the context or situation, and the generated solutions reflect their style of thinking. This result demonstrates that people from different cultures (e.g., eastern versus western culture) aim at different perspectives of task performance. An individual salient in <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking pays more attention to thinking outside of the box, whereas an individual salient in <emph>context‐dependent</emph> styles of thinking targets solutions that fit more inside the box. Both perspectives of a solution are salient, and no one perspective is better than the other, depending on task requirements.</p> <p>The environment and rules can influence an individual's thinking and ability to integrate things together, and in turn, this thinking or ability can affect creative performance from certain perspectives such as thinking outside of box or idea originality. When <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking is at work, creativity is more likely a focus on the originality where they tend to create new things on their own with the available resources. In contrast, when <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking is active, creativity is more about appropriateness where individuals try to combine available resources together for their use instead of creating new things. In terms of solving the problem, both types of creativity as measured in the study (borrowing shoes from others or working on the scuffs with alternative materials) can solve the problem. The difference lies in the way how they use the available resources which way works better from an individual's point of view. The answer to this question may be related to the specific situation or task context. In other words, the task context, as reflected in the nature of the task, moderates the nature of creative solutions that are outcomes of different thinking styles.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-30">Contribition and Limitations</hd> <p>Overall, the current research contributes to the existing knowledge from several perspectives. First, this research advances prior literature on the relationship between cross‐cultural differences and creativity. For example, Nouri et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref102">60</reflink>]) demonstrate that Singaporean groups, as compared to Israeli groups, generate fewer novel ideas and elaborate more on the appropriateness (versus novelty) of their ideas. Further, individualistic cultures are more likely to apply the novelty processing mode underlying creativity, while collective cultures tend to apply the processing mode of appropriateness (Xie and Paik [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref103">83</reflink>]). However, other researchers, such as Liou and Lan ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref104">46</reflink>]) find no differences in creativity measures of originality and usefulness between Taiwanese and American participants. Recently, Karnilowicz Mizuno and Xu ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref105">38</reflink>]) found that Japanese participants conceptualize creativity as a problem‐solving process, which is characterized in western cultures such as America (Lubart and Sternberg [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref106">48</reflink>]). The current research attempts to address the above dilemma of inconsistent findings in this line of inquiry. Based on our findings, cultural differences in creativity exist but are subject to cognitive tasks that restrict people's cognitive flexibility. Future research may focus on identifying other moderating factors that strengthen or weaken this difference. This, we believe, is the first attempt to test the role of style of thinking in influencing different levels of creativity across cultures.</p> <p>Second, the present research may have practical applications for companies that engage in product development participation. When they provide components for customers to design their own products, they could consider cultural differences. For example, to maximize customer creative performance and their satisfaction in a culture characterized by <emph>context‐independent</emph> (versus <emph>context‐dependent</emph>) style of thinking, companies may need to consider providing decontextualized (versus contextualized) cognitive tasks. From a policy perspective, initiatives to improve creativity may need to be considered, keeping in view the cultural diversity that exists in society (Stano and Węziak‐Białowolska [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref107">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>One of the limitations of the present study is that only one dimension of creativity (i.e., originality) is considered in coding. For example, <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking can result in a higher level of originality (Study 1a and 1b). However, when cognitive tasks are restricted to the context, the difference in the outside‐of‐box ideas generated is low. Further, as discussed earlier, creativity includes both originality and appropriateness. When both dimensions are considered in coding, cross‐cultural differences in creativity may not exist. It would be interesting to combine the dimensions together and examine the influence of cross‐cultural differences in styles of thinking on overall creativity. Future empirical research may include cognitive flexibility as an underlying mechanism in the research design to be tested as a mediator. Future research may also extend our findings to a broader canvass of innovation and creativity (Tsegaye et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref108">79</reflink>]). In order to replicate our findings on a wider scale, field studies may be conducted across cultures. Finally, the role of gender in different cultures in our model may also be considered by future research (Hardy III and Gibson [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref109">31</reflink>]; Hong et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref110">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>In conclusion, the current research explores the cross‐cultural differences in creativity. In particular, the results show that the <emph>context‐independent</emph> style of thinking, which is common in western cultures, likely leads to more originality of an idea (Study 1a, 1b, and Study 2b) than the <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking, which is common in eastern cultures. However, when the task is context‐bound, the <emph>context‐dependent</emph> style of thinking may perform better (Study 2a).</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-31">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>All information disclosed in this manuscript is correct, and there is no situation or interest that may raise a conflict. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-32">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186049512-33">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0186049512-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref35" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T. M. 1983. " The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, no. 2 : 357 – 376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Averill, J. R., K. K. Chon, and D. W. Hahn. 2001. " Emotions and Creativity, East and West." Asian Journal of Social Psychology 4, no. 3 : 165 – 183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref42" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baas, M., C. K. De Dreu, and B. A. Nijstad. 2008. " A Meta‐Analysis of 25 Years of Mood‐Creativity Research: Hedonic Tone, Activation, or Regulatory Focus? " Psychological Bulletin 134, no. 6 : 779 – 806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barth, P., and G. Stadtmann. 2025. " Creativity in the West and the East: A Meta‐Analysis of Cross‐Cultural Differences." Creativity Research Journal : 1 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Basadur, M., and P. A. Hausdorf. 1996. " Measuring Divergent Thinking Attitudes Related to Creative Problem Solving and Innovation Management." Creativity Research Journal 9 : 21 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bendapudi, N., S. Zhan, and Y.‐Y. Hong. 2018. " Cultural Values Differentially Moderate the Benefits of Basic Education on Two Types of National Innovation Outputs." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 49 : 199 – 222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref86" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burroughs, J. E., and D. Glen Mick. 2004. " Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem‐Solving Context." Journal of Consumer Research 31, no. 2 : 402 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caldwell, D. F., and C. A. O'Reilly III. 1990. " Measuring Person‐Job Fit With a Profile‐Comparison Process." Journal of Applied Psychology 75, no. 6 : 648 – 657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.75.6.648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carson, S. H., J. B. Peterson, and D. M. Higgins. 2005. " Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire." Creativity Research Journal 17, no. 1 : 37 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, S. H., Y. D. Wang, R. Y. Horng, and Y. C. Huang. 2007. " Person–Project Fit and R&amp;D Performance: A Case Study of Industrial Technology Research Institute of Taiwan." R&amp;D Management 37, no. 3 : 209 – 220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, I., M. Koo, and J. A. Choi. 2007. " Individual Differences in Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33, no. 5 : 691 – 705.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coley, J. D., C. E. Seaton, A. Z. Vitkin, and J. E. Yopchick. 2005. " Effects of Experience on Relational Inferences in Children: The Case of Folk Biology." In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cousins, S. D. 1989. " Culture and Self‐Perception in Japan and the United States." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, no. 1 : 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Dreu, C. K., M. Baas, and B. A. Nijstad. 2012. " The Emotive Roots of Creativity: Basic and Applied Issues on Affect and Motivation." In Handbook of Organizational Creativity, 217 – 240. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Dreu, C. K., B. A. Nijstad, and M. Baas. 2011. " Behavioral Activation Links to Creativity Because of Increased Cognitive Flexibility." Social Psychological and Personality Science 2, no. 1 : 72 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610381789.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deng, L., L. Wang, and Y. Zhao. 2016. " How Creativity Was Affected by Environmental Factors and Individual Characteristics: A Cross‐Cultural Comparison Perspective." Creativity Research Journal 28, no. 3 : 357 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donthu, N., and B. Yoo. 1998. " Cultural Influences on Service Quality Expectations." Journal of Service Research 192 : 178 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreisbach, G., and T. Goschke. 2004. " How Positive Affect Modulates Cognitive Control: Reduced Perseveration at the Cost of Increased Distractibility." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, no. 2 : 343 – 352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, J. R. 1991. " Person–Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, and Methodological Critique." In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by C. L. R. I. T. Cooper, vol. 6, 283 – 357. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, J. R. 1996. " An Examination of Competing Versions of the Person‐Environment Fit Approach to Stress." Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 2 : 292 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, J. R., and A. J. Shipp. 2007. " The Relationship Between Person‐Environment Fit and Outcomes: An Integrative Theoretical Framework." In Perspectives on Organizational Fit, edited by C. Ostroff and T. A. Judge, 209 – 258. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberger, R., and L. Rhoades. 2001. " Incremental Effects of Reward on Creativity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 4 : 728 – 741.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fang, Z., X. Xu, L. W. Grant, J. H. Stronge, and T. J. Ward. 2016. " National Culture, Creativity, and Productivity: What's the Relationship With Student Achievement? " Creativity Research Journal 28, no. 4 : 395 – 406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fazel, H., A. O. Laplume, and E. Muralidharan. 2015. " Technological Innovation and Adopter Self‐Construal." International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 12, no. 4 : 1550016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finke, R. A., T. B. Ward, and S. M. Smith. 1996. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. MIT press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finucane, M. L., C. K. Mertz, P. Slovic, and E. S. Schmidt. 2005. " Task Complexity and Older Adults' Decision‐Making Competence." Psychology and Aging 20, no. 1 : 71 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Förster, J., K. Epstude, and A. Özelsel. 2009. " Why Love Has Wings and Sex Has Not: How Reminders of Love and Sex Influence Creative and Analytic Thinking." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35, no. 11 : 1479 – 1491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goetz, N., and A. Wald. 2021. " Employee Performance in Temporary Organizations: The Effects of Person‐Environment Fit and Temporariness on Task Performance and Innovative Performance." European Management Review 18, no. 2 : 25 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Güss, C. D., M. T. Tuason, N. Göltenboth, and A. Mironova. 2018. " Creativity Through the Eyes of Professional Artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 49 : 261 – 289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannover, B., and U. Kühnen. 2004. " Culture, Context, and Cognition: The Semantic Procedural Interface Model of the Self." European Review of Social Psychology 15 : 297 – 333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardy, J. H., III, and C. Gibson. 2017. " Gender Differences in the Measurement of Creative Problem‐Solving." Journal of Creative Behavior 51, no. 2 : 153 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harinck, F., C. K. De Dreu, and A. E. Van Vianen. 2000. " The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed‐Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81, no. 2 : 329 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hon, A. H., and R. B. Rensvold. 2006. " An Interactional Perspective on Perceived Empowerment: The Role of Personal Needs and Task Context." International Journal of Human Resource Management 17, no. 5 : 959 – 982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong, E., Y. Peng, H. F. O'Neil Jr., and J. Wu. 2013. " Domain‐General and Domain‐Specific Creative‐Thinking Tests: Effects of Gender and Item Content on Test Performance." Journal of Creative Behavior 47, no. 2 : 89 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ionescu, T. 2012. " Exploring the Nature of Cognitive Flexibility." New Ideas in Psychology 30, no. 2 : 190 – 200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ji, L. J., T. I. Vaughan‐Johnston, Z. Zhang, J. A. Jacobson, N. Zhang, and X. Huang. 2021. " Contextual and Cultural Differences in Positive Thinking." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 52, no. 5 : 449 – 467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karnilowicz Mizuno, C., and L. Xu. 2022. " Conceptualizing Culture and Creativity: Perspectives on Creativity by Japanese Secondary School Students." Journal of Creative Behavior 56 : 449 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. C. 2009. " Creativity, Intelligence, and Culture: Connections and Possibilities." In Milieus of Creativity. Knowledge and Space, edited by P. Meusburger, J. Funke, and E. Wunder, vol. 2, 159 – 168. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, T. Y., A. H. Hon, and J. M. Crant. 2009. " Proactive Personality, Employee Creativity, and Newcomer Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study." Journal of Business and Psychology 24 : 93 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kristof‐Brown, A. L., R. D. Zimmerman, and E. C. Johnson. 2005. " Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work: A Meta‐Analysis of Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–Supervisor Fit." Personnel Psychology 58, no. 2 : 281 – 342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kühnen, U., B. Hannover, and B. Schubert. 2001. " The Semantic–Procedural Interface Model of the Self: The Role of Self‐Knowledge for Context‐Dependent Versus Context‐Independent Modes of Thinking." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80, no. 3 : 397 – 409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kühnen, U., and D. Oyserman. 2002. " Thinking About the Self‐Influences Thinking in General: Cognitive Consequences of Salient Self‐Concept." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, no. 5 : 492 – 499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, L. M. W., T. Masuda, T. Hamamura, and K. Ishii. 2018. " Culture and Decision Making: Influence of Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking Style on Resource Allocation in a Fort Game." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 49, no. 7 : 1066 – 1080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang, B., and J. Cherian. 2010. " Cross‐Cultural Differences in the Effects of Abstract and Concrete Thinking on Imagery Generation and Ad Persuasion." Journal of International Consumer Marketing 22, no. 2 : 187 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liou, S., and X. Lan. 2018. " Situational Salience of Norms Moderates Cultural Differences in the Originality and Usefulness of Creative Ideas Generated or Selected by Teams." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 49 : 290 – 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, S., K. M. Bartol, V. Venkataramani, X. Zheng, and X. Liu. 2019. " Pitching Novel Ideas to the Boss: The Interactive Effects of Employees' Idea Enactment and Influence Tactics on Creativity Assessment and Implementation." Academy of Management Journal 62, no. 2 : 579 – 606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubart, T. I., and R. J. Sternberg. 1998. " Creativity Across Time and Place: Life Span and Cross‐Cultural Perspectives." High Ability Studies 9, no. 1 : 59 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus, H. R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. " Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation." Psychological Review 98, no. 2 : 224 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, J. H. 2017. The Value of Creativity: The Origins and Emergence of a Modern Belief. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehta, R., and D. W. Dahl. 2019. " Creativity: Past, Present, and Future." Consumer Psychology Review 2, no. 1 : 30 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miron‐Spektor, E., and S. B. F. Paletz. 2024. " Culture and Creativity in Organization: New Directions and Discoveries." In The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Organizations, edited by M. J. Gelfand and M. Erez, 240 – 267. Oxford Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monga, A. B., and D. R. John. 2006. " Cultural Differences in Brand Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking." Journal of Consumer Research 33, no. 4 : 529 – 536. https://doi.org/10.1086/510227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumford, M. D., and S. B. Gustafson. 1988. " Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation." Psychological Bulletin 103 : 27 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muralidharan, E., and S. Pathak. 2020. " Contextualizing Technology Adoption and Self‐Expression for Technology Entrepreneurial Innovation." International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 17, no. 4 : 2050026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, A. K. 2001. Why Asians Are Less Creative Than Westerners. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijstad, B. A., C. K. De Dreu, E. F. Rietzschel, and M. Baas. 2010. " The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model: Creative Ideation as a Function of Flexibility and Persistence." European Review of Social Psychology 21, no. 1 : 34 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently ... And Why. Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nisbett, R. E., K. Peng, I. Choi, and A. Norenzayan. 2001. " Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic Versus Analytic Cognition." Psychological Review 108 : 291 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nouri, R., M. Erez, T. Rockstuhl, S. Ang, L. Leshem‐Calif, and A. Rafaeli. 2013. " Taking the Bite out of Culture: The Impact of Task Structure and Task Type on Overcoming Impediments to Cross‐Cultural Team Performance." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 : 739 – 763.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyserman, D., N. Sorensen, R. Reber, and S. X. Chen. 2009. " Connecting and Separating Mind‐Sets: Culture as Situated Cognition." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 2 : 217 – 235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paletz, S. B., and K. Peng. 2009. " Problem Finding and Contradiction: Examining the Relationship Between Naive Dialectical Thinking, Ethnicity, and Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 21, no. 2–3 : 139 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmiero, M., C. Nakatani, and C. van Leeuwen. 2017. " Visual Creativity Across Cultures: A Comparison Between Italians and Japanese." Creativity Research Journal 29, no. 1 : 86 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1263514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick, L. B. 1991. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by L. Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley, 1 – 22. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rinne, T., G. D. Steel, and J. Fairweather. 2013. " The Role of Hofstede's Individualism in National‐Level Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 25, no. 1 : 129 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, S. M., and N. Mostert. 2017. " Enhancement of Creative Thinking Skills Using Cognitive‐Based Creativity Training." Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 1, no. 3 : 243 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A. 1993. " Operant Theories of Insight, Originality, and Creativity." American Behavioral Scientist 37 : 59 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., and R. Charles. 1993. " Judgments of Originality and Appropriateness as Predictors of Creativity." Personality and Individual Differences 15, no. 5 : 537 – 546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191‐8869(93)90337‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saeki, N., X. Fan, and L. Van Dusen. 2001. " A Comparative Study of Creative Thinking of American and Japanese College Students." Journal of Creative Behavior 35, no. 1 : 24 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shafto, P., and J. D. Coley. 2003. " Development of Categorization and Reasoning in the Natural World: Novices to Experts, Naive Similarity to Ecological Knowledge." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29, no. 4 : 641 – 649.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shao, Y., C. Zhang, J. Zhou, T. Gu, and Y. Yuan. 2019. " How Does Culture Shape Creativity? A Mini Review." Frontiers in Psychology 10 : 1219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S. M. 1995. The Creative Cognition Approach, edited by S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, and R. A. Finke, 135 – 156. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stano, P. M., and D. Węziak‐Białowolska. 2017. " Measuring Cultural and Creative Activities in European Cities: Challenges and Practical Problems With Existing Indices." Creativity Research Journal 29, no. 3 : 292 – 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storme, M., T. Lubart, N. Myszkowski, P. C. Cheung, T. Tong, and S. Lau. 2017. " A Cross‐Cultural Study of Task Specificity in Creativity." Journal of Creative Behavior 51, no. 3 : 263 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, C. 2020. " A Confucian Interpretation of Creativity." Journal of Creative Behavior 54, no. 3 : 636 – 645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, Y. Y. 2017. Curiosity and Creativity Motivate Self‐Learning. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triandis, H. C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2010. " Construal‐Level Theory of Psychological Distance." Psychological Review 117, no. 2 : 440 – 463.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsegaye, W., Q. Su, and M. Malik. 2019. " The Antecedent Impact of Culture and Economic Growth on Nations Creativity and Innovation Capability." Creativity Research Journal 31, no. 2 : 215 – 222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Von Franz, M. L. 1995. Creation Myths: Patterns of Creativity Mirrored in Creation Myths. Shambala.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, R., and W. Niu. 2013. " Cultural Difference in Stereotype Perceptions and Performances in Nonverbal Deductive Reasoning and Creativity." Journal of Creative Behavior 47, no. 1 : 41 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wronska, M. K., A. Bujacz, M. A. Gocłowska, E. F. Rietzschel, and B. A. Nijstad. 2019. " Person‐Task Fit: Emotional Consequences of Performing Divergent Versus Convergent Thinking Tasks Depend on Need for Cognitive Closure." Personality and Individual Differences 142 : 172 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, G., and Y. Paik. 2019. " Cultural Differences in Creativity and Innovation: Are Asian Employees Truly Less Creative Than Western Employees? " Asia Pacific Business Review 25 : 123 – 147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yi, X., W. Hu, H. Scheithauer, and W. Niu. 2013. " Cultural and Bilingual Influences on Artistic Creativity Performances: Comparison of German and Chinese Students." Creativity Research Journal 25, no. 1 : 97 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2002. " The Effect of Marketing Education and Individual Cultural Values on Marketing Ethics of Students." Journal of Marketing Education 24, no. 2 : 92 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wenxia Guo; Etayankara Muralidharan and Saurav Pathak</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref110"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1474473 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Cultural Differences in Thinking outside of Box: The Influence of Context-Independent versus Context-Dependent Thinking Styles on Creative Task Performance – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wenxia+Guo%22">Wenxia Guo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0614-9784">0000-0002-0614-9784</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Etayankara+Muralidharan%22">Etayankara Muralidharan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-3089">0000-0001-7985-3089</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saurav+Pathak%22">Saurav Pathak</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(2). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 11 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Style%22">Cognitive Style</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Differences%22">Individual Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/jocb.70017 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Previous research has examined cross-cultural influences on creative performance. Findings of this line of inquiry are, however, not consistent. While some scholars suggest that individuals from Western cultures, who tend to apply context-independent thinking styles, produce more novel ideas given a cognitive task than individuals from Eastern cultures, who tend to apply context-dependent thinking styles, others do not find such differences. Our research attempts to explore this dilemma and identify conditions that drive cross-cultural differences in creativity. Overall, our findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in creativity exist, but they may be contingent on the nature of the cognitive tasks that may restrict individuals' cognitive flexibility. In particular, the current research shows that the more the cognitive tasks fit individual differences (context-independent vs. context-dependent thinking styles), the better the task performance. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1474473 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1474473 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/jocb.70017 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking Type: general – SubjectFull: Context Effect Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive Style Type: general – SubjectFull: Creativity Type: general – SubjectFull: Task Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Individual Differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Performance Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Cultural Differences in Thinking outside of Box: The Influence of Context-Independent versus Context-Dependent Thinking Styles on Creative Task Performance Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Wenxia Guo – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Etayankara Muralidharan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Saurav Pathak IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0022-0175 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 2162-6057 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 59 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
