Search

Past research shows that democracy is valued more in affluent societies with challenging climate than in other societies. Building on this finding, the present study examines how the amount of institutional and value support for cultural pluralism in a society is related to its climate and level of innovation performance. Cultural pluralism is defined as the societal condition in which minority groups within a society can maintain their distinctive cultural identities, values, and practices provided that they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. Institutions and values that support cultural pluralism include political democracy, tolerance for uncertainty, prioritization of secular-rational values, and openness to foreign cultures. I hypothesize that institutional and value support for cultural pluralism is stronger in societies with more challenging climate and higher innovation performance. I tested this hypothesis using society-level measures of harshness of climatic condition and innovation performance as predictors. The results showed that in societies with demanding climate and high innovation performance, their citizens tend to support democracy, are more tolerant of uncertainty, prioritize secular-rational values, and take more leisure trips outside of their home country. These results illustrate that innovation, through its moderation effect on climate, predicts the amount of institutional and value support for cultural pluralism, highlighting the reciprocal effects of culture and innovation.

This special issue enriches the study of creativity and innovation as a cultural and social process. Authors of nine articles jointly contribute to a nuanced and systematical inquiry into the cultural perspective of creativity. Their topics of investigation include lay conceptions of creativity in different cultures, different natures and manifestations of creativity and innovation, the influence of cultural values, norms, and multiculturalism on creativity, and the dialogical coevolvement between culture and creativity. The collection of articles in this issue presents cutting-edge evidence and lays the groundwork for an active dialogue about integrating the study of culture and creativity.

This edited volume presents 12 chapters to enrich the cultural perspective of creativity. Contributed by esteemed scholars in the field, this book is a joint effort to provide an in-depth and systematic inquiry into the cultural processes of creativity and innovation, as well as the creative processes of cultural transformation. On the one hand, creativity emerges from dialogical interaction with cultural imperatives, norms, and artifacts; on the other hand, culture is evolved and transformed through a generative process fueled by creativity. To illuminate nuanced insights on the complex culture–creativity nexus, this volume is organized in four broad sections. It starts with two chapters that provide a comprehensive account on the reciprocal nature of culture and creativity. Four chapters then provide an innovative take of contextualizing creativity from a multitude of perspectives, including situating the study of creativity across time, communities, professions, nations, and so on. This is followed by four chapters that identify the creative advantages of multicultural or diversifying experiences among individuals and teams. The volume concludes with two outstanding chapters that inform us about the policy implications and applications of studying the cultural perspective of creativity with case studies from Taiwan and Hong Kong. This cogent volume presents cutting-edge evidence and lays the groundwork for pursuing a new science for integrating the study of culture and creativity.

Based on the instrumental account of emotion regulation (Tamir, 2005), the current research seeks to offer a novel perspective to the emotions-creativity debate by investigating the instrumental value of trait-consistent emotions in creativity. We hypothesize that emotions such as worry (vs. happy) are trait-consistent experiences for individuals higher on trait neuroticism and experiencing these emotions can facilitate performance in a creativity task. In 3 studies, we found support for our hypothesis. First, individuals higher in neuroticism had a greater preference for recalling worrisome (vs. happy) events in anticipation of performing a creativity task (Study 1). Moreover, when induced to recall a worrisome (vs. happy) event, individuals higher in neuroticism came up with more creative design (Study 2) and more flexible uses of a brick (Study 3) when the task was a cognitively demanding one. Further, Study 3 offers preliminary support that increased intrinsic task enjoyment and motivation mediates the relationship between trait-consistent emotion regulation and creative performance. These findings offer a new perspective to the controversy concerning the emotions-creativity relationship and further demonstrate the role of instrumental emotion regulation in the domain of creative performance.

The articles in this forum present many innovative ideas on the role of culture in creativity. In this commentary, we first discuss the contributions of these articles in relation to two recurrent themes: (i) where creativity resides and (ii) what conceptual refinements are needed to push the field forward. Next, we oudine a process model of creativity and explain the role of culture at each stage of knowledge creation. We argue that successful innovation involves one or more iterations of the following three stages: (i) authoring new ideas; (ii) selecting, editing, and marketing new ideas; and (iii) acceptance of the new ideas in the market. The desired outcomes are different at the different stages, and culture influences all stages of the process. Specifically, existing knowledge provides a reference point for evaluating the originality of ideas; assumed cultural consensus provides the normative basis for idea selection, editing, and marketing; and actual cultural norms determine how likely an idea will be accepted in a culture. Furthermore, different social and psychological processes are at work at different stages of the creativity process, and culture can affect the outcomes of the creativity process through its effects on these social and psychological processes.

In globalized societies, people often encounter symbols of diverse cultures in the same space at the same time. Simultaneous exposure to diverse cultures draws people's attention to cultural differences and promotes catergorical perceptions of culture. Local cultural identification and presence of cultural threat increase the likelihood of resisting inflow of foreign cultures (exclusionary reactions). When cultures are seen as intellectual resources, foreign cultural exposure affords intercultural learning and enhances individual creativity (integrative reactions). Psychological studies of globalization attest to the utility of treating cultures as evolving, interacting systems, rather than static, independent entities.

Based on the instrumental account of emotion regulation, the current research seeks to offer a novel perspective to the emotions-creativity debate by investigating the instrumental value of trait-consistent emotions in creativity. We hypothesize that emotions such as worry (vs. happy) are some trait-consistent experiences for neurotic individuals and experiencing these emotions can facilitate performance in a creativity task. In two studies, we found support for our hypothesis. First, individuals higher in neuroticism had a greater preference for recalling worrisome (vs. happy) events in anticipation of performing a creativity task (Study 1). Moreover, when induced to recall a worrisome (vs. happy) event, individuals higher in neuroticism had better performance in a creativity task (Study 2). These findings offer a new perspective to the controversy concerning the emotions-creativity relationship and further demonstrate the role of instrumental emotion regulation in the domain of creative performance.