MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788666432 · doi:10.1177/0022022117713153

How Chinese and Caucasian Canadians Conceptualize Creativity: The Mediating Role of Uncertainty Avoidance

2018· article· en· W2788666432 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wendi L. Adair, Tracy Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityCollectivismNoveltyUncertainty avoidanceConceptualizationPsychologySalience (neuroscience)Social psychologyIndividualismHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryValue (mathematics)CognitionNorm (philosophy)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examines cultural value mediators of the relationship between culture and the relative weight placed on novelty versus usefulness when conceptualizing creativity. With a sample of Chinese and Caucasian Canadian undergraduate students, we found that uncertainty avoidance, but not power distance or individualism/collectivism, mediated the relationship between culture and preferences toward the novel versus useful dimensions of creativity. We replicated the effect of uncertainty avoidance in a second study with Chinese Canadians’ bicultural identity integration predicting focus on novelty versus usefulness in the predicted direction. We advance prior research by isolating a cultural value mechanism driving cultural variation in the conceptualization of creativity when considering novelty versus usefulness. We discuss theoretical contributions and implications for future research addressing additional creativity domains, situated cognition, and norm salience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.398 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207