Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:19:43.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creativity in Eastern and Western Civilizations: The Lessons of Historiometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Dean Keith Simonton  and
Shing-Shiang Ting
Dean Keith Simonton
Affiliation:
University of California, USA
Shing-Shiang Ting
Affiliation:
Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the fundamental factors that promote highly influential creativity? How do these factors differ in Western and Far Eastern civilizations? Many researchers have addressed these questions using historiometrics, a method that tests nomothetic hypotheses about human behaviour by subjecting historical and biographical data to objective and quantitative analyses. These investigations may entail either aggregate-level analyses (e.g., generational time series of creative activity) or individual-level analyses (e.g., cross-sectional studies of creative achievement). Moreover, the empirical findings in each of these two approaches fall into two categories of East-West comparisons: (i) shared variables and convergent results and (ii) shared variables and divergent results. After reviewing representative findings in each of these categories, we discuss what the results imply about the nature of high-impact creativity in the East and West and also explore areas of potential future historiometric research.

Keywords

civilizationscreativitygeneralizationshistoriometryZeitgeist文明创造カ普遍化历史测学时代精神
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 329 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cox, C. 1926. The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
de Candolle, A. 1873. Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siecles. Geneva: Georg.Google Scholar
Ercz, M., & Nonri, R. 2010. Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6(3): 351–370.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. 1995. Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C. E. 1958. An analysis of Graeco-Roman development: The epicyclical evolution of Graeco-Roman civilization. American Anthropologist, 60(1): 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C. E. 1961. An epicyclical model for western civilization. American Anthropologist, 63(5): 1014–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C. E. 1966. A measurement of creativity in western civilization. American Anthropologist, 68(6): 1384–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, F. L. K. 1953. Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. 2000-2001. Genius, lunatics and poets: Mental illness in prize-winning authors. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 20(4): 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. 2001. The Sylvia Plath effect: Mental illness in eminent creative writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. 2003. The cost of the muse; poets die young. Death Studies, 27(9): 813–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. 2002. The will, the wit, the judgement: The importance of an early start in productive and successful creative writing. High Ability Studies, 13(2): 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Mohler, P. P., & Weber, R. P. 1982. Cultural indicators based on content analysis: A secondary' analysis of Sorokin's data on fluctuations of systems of truth. Quality & Quantity, 16(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, Y., & Kim, J. 2008. Scientific geniuses' psychopathology as a moderator in the relation between creative contribution types and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 20(3): 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozbelt, A. 2008. One-hit wonders in classical music: Evidence and (partial) explanations for an early career peak. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2): 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1944. Configurations of culture growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Y. 1986. The growth and decline of Chinese philosophical genius. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 28(2): 81–91.Google Scholar
Kuo, Y. 1988. The social psychology of Chinese philosophical creativity: A critical synthesis. Social Epistemology, 2(4): 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, H. C. 1953. Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3): 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. 1992. Creative achievement and psychopathology: Comparison among professions. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 46(3): 330–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, A. M. 1998. Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2): 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. 1990. The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic styles. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. 1995. Creativity and connectionism. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach: 249–268. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murray, C. 2003. Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
Naroll, R., Benjamin, E. C., Fohl, F. K., Fried, M. J., Hildreth, R. E., & Schaefer, J. M. 1971. Creativity: A cross-historical pilot survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2(2): 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemcth, C. J., & Kwan, J. 1985. Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3): 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. 1987. Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(9): 788–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. 2005. Creativity in troubled times: Factors associated with recognitions of Chinese literary creativity in the 20th century. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., & Peng, K. 2008. Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3): 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, F. 1994. Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165(2): 22–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, D. 1978. Ups and downs in the pulse of science and technology'. In Gaston, J. (Ed.), The sociology of science: 162–171. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rainoff, T.J. 1929. Wave-like fluctuations of creative productivity in the development of West-European physics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Isis, 12(2): 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, E. A. 1936. Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31(1): 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, J. M., Babu, M. C., & Rao, N. S. 1977. Sociopolitical causes of creativity in India 500 B.C.-1800 A. D.: A regional time-lagged study. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Studies Association, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. 1937. The cultural situation as a condition for the achievement of fame. American Sociological Review, 2(4): 480–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1975a. Age and literary creativity: A cross-cultural and transhistorical survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(3): 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1975b. Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-scries analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6): 1119–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. 1976a. Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2): 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1976b. The causal relation between war and scientific discovery: An exploratory cross-national analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7(2): 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1976c. Do Sorokin's data support his theory? A study of generational fluctuations in philosophical beliefs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15(2): 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1976d. Ideological diversity and creativity: A re-evaluation of a hypothesis. Social Behavior and Personality, 4(2): 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1976e. The sociopolitical context of philosophical beliefs: A transhistorical causal analysis. Social Forces, 54(3): 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1976f. Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and Zeitgeist: An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4): 630–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1977a. Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(11): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1977b. Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(11): 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1980a. Techno-scientific activity and war: A yearly time-series analysis, 1500-1903 A.D. Scientometrics, 2(4): 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1980b. Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical Zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6): 972–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1983. Formal education, eminence, and dogmatism: The curvilinear relationship. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(3): 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1984. Generational time-series analysis: A paradigm for studying sociocultural influences. In Gergen, K. & Gergen, M. (Eds.), Historical social psychology: 141–155. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1986. Biographical typicality, eminence, and achievement style. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(1): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1988. Galtonian genius, Kroeberian configurations, and emulation: A generational time-series analysis of Chinese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2): 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1990. Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1991a. Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27(1): 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1991b. Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5): 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1991c. Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation: A quest for Gallon's G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4): 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1992. Gender and genius in Japan: Feminine eminence in masculine culture. Sex Roles, 27(3-4): 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1996. Individual genius and cultural configurations: The case of Japanese civilization. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(3): 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1997a. Achievement domain and life expectancies in Japanese civilization. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44(2): 103–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. 1997b. Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104(1): 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1997c. Foreign influence and national achievement: The impact of open milieus on Japanese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1): 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 1998. Achieved eminence in minority and majority cultures: Convergence versus divergence in the assessments of 294 African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3): 804–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2000. Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1): 151–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. 2003a. Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and results. In Paulus, P. B. & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration: 304–328. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2003b. Kroeber's cultural configurations, Sorokin's culture mentalities, and generational time-series analysis: A quantitative paradigm for the comparative study of civilizations. Comparative Civilizations Review, 4(Fall): 96–108.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2004. Creative clusters, political fragmentation, and cultural heterogeneity: An investigative journey though civilizations East and West. In Bernholz, P. & Vaubel, R. (Eds.), Political competition, innovation and growth in the history of Asian civilizations: 39–56. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2005. Creativity (in the arts and sciences). In Horowitz, M. C. (Ed.), New dictionary of the history of ideas: 493–497. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2007. Creative life cycles in literature: Poets versus novelists or conceptualisls versus experimentalists? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(3): 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2008a. Bilingualism and creativity. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R. (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes: 147–166. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2008b. Cliometrics. In Darity, W. A. Jr (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed.): 581–583. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. 2009. Historiometry in personality and social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(1): 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorokin, P. A. 1937-1941. Social and cultural dynamics. New York: American Book.Google Scholar
Sorokin, P. A. 1969. Society, culture, and personality. New York: Cooper Square. (Original work published 1947).Google Scholar
Sorokin, P. A., & Merton, R. K. 1935. The course of Arabian intellectual development, 700-1300 A.D. A study in method. Isis, 22(2): 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. 1996. Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Ting, S.-S.. 1992a. Chinese literary eminence and personal factors: A recursive structural equation model [Mandarin]. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 1: 21–37.Google Scholar
Ting, S.-S.. 1992b. Sociocultural context of literary creativity in Chinese civilization: A transhistorical time-series analysis [Mandarin]. Journal of Fu-Jen University (Liberal Arts & Social Sciences), 21: 53–79.Google Scholar
Ting, S.-S.. 1993a. Sociocultural context of eminent scientists and technicians (or inventors) in Chinese civilization [Mandarin]. Journal of Fu-Jen University (Liberal Arts & Social Sciences), 22: 137–163.Google Scholar
Ting, S.-S.. 1993b. Sociocultural context of philosophical eminence in Chinese civilization: A historiometric analysis [Mandarin]. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 2: 45–74.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P., & Sato, S. 1979. Differences in Japanese and United States styles of thinking. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 4(3): 145–151.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
White, R. K. 1931. The versatility of genius. Journal of Social Psychology, 2(4): 460–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar