Revisiting the Multicultural Experience–Creativity Link: The Effects of Perceived Cultural Distance and Comparison Mind-Set
Open accessAbstract
A growing literature provides evidence for the multicultural experience–creativity link such that exposure to the juxtaposition of two cultures facilitates individual creativity. The underlying mechanisms for this relationship, however, are still far from being well explored. Drawing upon the novel perspective of motivated cognition, we hypothesize that two factors interact to affect creative outcomes: (a) perceived cultural distance between the two juxtaposed cultures, and (b) comparison mind-sets. Specifically, we argue that individuals’ creative performance will be increased only when a difference mind-set is employed to process the cultural stimuli that are sufficiently different from each other. In two studies, individuals exposed to dual cultural primes with higher levels of perceived cultural distance consistently performed more adeptly in creative insight tasks when they personally predisposed to or experimentally manipulated to adopt a difference (vs. similarity) mind-set. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Leaders with ample multicultural experience are likely to have a greater cognitive understanding of the effects of team diversity.
“For instance, leaders with ample multicultural experience-extensive contact with and exposure to foreign cultures (Cheng & Leung, 2013)-are likely to have a greater cognitive understanding of the effects of team diversity, because encountering a foreign environment helps acquire new perspectives on different situations and cultures (Gutierrez & Sameroff, 1990) and anticipate others' interests and”
From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as Cheng & Leung, 2013
Cites
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4 · Cited by 2,552 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Creativity was measured by two commonly used insight problem-solving tasks: the four dots task (Dow & Mayer, 2004) and the tumor task (Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000482 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cheng, C.-Y., & Leung, A. K.-Y.
- Affiliations
- Singapore Management University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Chi-Ying
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-10-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 475-482
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2012739653
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Keywords
- multicultural experience, creativity, perceived cultural distance, motivated cognition, creative insight, cross-cultural exposure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review