Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:10:00.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not Just How Much You Know: Interactional Effect of Cultural Knowledge and Metacognition on Creativity in a Global Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

Roy Y. J. Chua  and
Kok Yee Ng
Roy Y. J. Chua*
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University, Singapore
Kok Yee Ng
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
*
Corresponding author: Roy Y. J. Chua ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ability to think and solve problems creatively in a multicultural environment is critical for success in the 21st century. Integrating research on creative cognition and cultural intelligence, we examine the interactional effects of two cognitive capabilities – cultural knowledge and cultural metacognition – on individuals’ creativity in multicultural teams. We propose that although cultural knowledge is useful for creativity, too much knowledge can be detrimental because of cognitive overload and entrenchment. This inverted U-shaped relationship however, is moderated by cultural metacognition. Results of our study support our hypothesis of an inverted U-shape relationship between cultural knowledge and creativity. As expected, we found that the curvilinear effect of cultural knowledge occurs only for individuals with low metacognition. For high cultural metacognition individuals, cultural knowledge has no effect on creativity. These findings offer new insights and practical implications for creativity in today's global environment.

摘要:

摘要:

在多元文化环境中创造性地思考和解决问题的能力对在21世纪成功至关重要。综合对创造性认知和文化智力的研究, 我们调查两种认知能力 — 文化知识和文化元认知 — 对多元文化团队中个体创造力的互动效应。我们提出, 虽然文化知识对创造力有用, 但由于认知超载和固执, 太多的知识可能是不利的。然而, 这种倒U形关系是由文化元认知来调节的。我们研究的结果支持我们对文化知识与创造力之间的倒U形关系的假设。如预期的那样, 我们发现文化知识的曲线效应仅发生在较低元认知的个体身上。对于高文化元认知的个体来说, 文化知识对创造力没有影响。这些发现对当今全球环境中的创造力提供了新见解和实际启示。

इक्कीसवीं सदी के बहुसांस्कृतिक परिवेश में रचनात्मक समस्या समाधान सफलता हेतु महत्वपूर्ण है. रचनात्मक अनुभूति व सांस्कृतिक समझ के शोध को जोड़ते हुए हमने दो अनुभूति क्षमताओं-सांस्कृतिक ज्ञान व सांस्कृतिक वृहद् अनुभूति के बहुसांस्कृतिक सन्दर्भ में व्यक्तिगत रचनात्मकता पर प्रभाव का अध्ययन किया है. हमारा यह मत है की यद्यपि सांस्कृतिक समख रचनात्मकता के लिए उपयोगी है, तथापि अत्यधिक ज्ञान के अनुभूतिक अतिभार व संवर्धन के कारण कुप्रभाव होता है. हालाँकि इस उलटे U-सम सम्बन्ध पर सांस्कृतिक वृहद् अनुभूति नियंत्रक की भूमिका निभाती है. हमारे शोध के परिणाम हमारी सांस्कृतिक समझ व रचनात्मकता के उलटे U-सम सम्बन्ध की अवधारणा की पुष्टि करते हैं. अपेक्षानुसार यह पुष्ट हुआ के सांस्कृतिक समझ का वक्राकार प्रभाव केवल निम्न वृहद् अनुभूति वाले व्यक्तियों के लिए ही है. उच्च वृहद् अनुभूति वाले व्यक्तियों के लिए सांस्कृतिक समझ का रचनात्मकता पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं है. यह परिणाम रचनात्मकता के भूमंडलीय सन्दर्भ में व्यावहारिक निहितार्थ पर प्रकाश डालते हैं.

Sumário:

Sumário:

A capacidade de pensar e resolver problemas criativamente em um ambiente multicultural é fundamental para o sucesso no século XXI. Integrando a pesquisa sobre cognição criativa e inteligência cultural, examinamos os efeitos de interação de duas capacidades cognitivas - conhecimento cultural e metacognição cultural - na criatividade de indivíduos em equipes multiculturais. Propomos que, embora o conhecimento cultural seja útil para a criatividade, um conhecimento excessivo pode ser prejudicial por causa da sobrecarga cognitiva e do entrincheiramento. Esta relação em forma de U invertido, entretanto, é moderada pela metacognição cultural. Os resultados do nosso estudo apoiam a nossa hipótese de uma relação em forma de U invertido entre o conhecimento cultural e a criatividade. Como esperado, descobrimos que o efeito curvilíneo do conhecimento cultural ocorre apenas para indivíduos com baixa metacognição. Para indivíduos com alta metacognição cultural, o conhecimento cultural não tem qualquer efeito sobre a criatividade. Essas descobertas oferecem novos insights e implicações práticas para a criatividade no ambiente global de hoje.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Способность мыслить и решать проблемы творчески в мультикультурной среде имеет решающее значение для достижения успеха в 21-м веке. Объединяя исследования в области творческого познания и культурного интеллекта, мы рассматриваем эффекты взаимодействия двух когнитивных способностей – культурного знания и культурного метапознания – которые влияют на индивидуальную креативность в мультикультурных группах. Мы предполагаем, что, хотя культурное знание полезно для творчества, слишком большое количество знаний могут быть пагубными из-за когнитивной перегрузки и нарушений. Это перевернутое U-образное соотношение, однако, регулируется культурным метапознанием. Результаты нашего исследования подтверждают нашу гипотезу о перевернутом U-образном соотношении между культурным знанием и творчеством. Как и предполагалось, мы обнаружили, что нелинейная зависимость от культурного знания существует только у лиц с низким метапознанием. Для лиц с высоким культурным метапознанием, культурное знание не имеет никакого влияния на творчество. Эти результаты дают новые теоретические представления, а также позволяют сделать практические выводы для творчества в современном глобальном контексте.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

La habilidad para pensar y resolver problemas creativamente en un ambiente multicultural es crítica para el éxito en el siglo XXI. Integrando la investigación en cognición creativa e inteligencia cultural, examinamos los efectos de la interacción de dos capacidades cognitivas – el conocimiento cultural y la meta-cognición cultural- en la creatividad de los individuos en equipos multiculturales. Proponemos que, aunque el conocimiento cultural es útil para la creatividad, demasiados conocimientos pueden ser perjudiciales debido a la carga y el arraigamiento cognitivo. La relación en forma de U invertida, sin embargo, es moderada por la meta-cognición cultural. Los resultados de nuestro estudio confirman nuestra hipótesis de una relación en forma de U invertida entre el conocimiento cultural y la creatividad. Como es esperado, encontramos que el efecto curvilíneo del conocimiento cultural ocurre solamente para individuos con baja meta-cognición. Estos hallazgos ofrecen nuevos aportes e implicaciones prácticas para la creatividad en el entorno global de hoy.

Keywords

creativitycultural intelligencecultural metacognitionknowledgeteams
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 281 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

An addendum to this article immediately follows in print.

References

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2): 357–377.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 1985. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. 2007. Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3 (3): 335–371.Google Scholar
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). 2008. Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. 1995. Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination and reorganization processes. Creativity Research Journal, 8 (1): 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. 2005. Individual and organizational unlearning: Directions for future research. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9 (7): 659–670.Google Scholar
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. 2006. Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 (4): 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and composition: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. 1989. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97 (5): 1232–1254.Google Scholar
Chua, R. Y. J. 2015. Innovating at cultural crossroads: How multicultural social networks promote ideas flow and creativity. Journal of Management. Online First, 3 September 2015.Google Scholar
Chua, R. Y. J., & Iyengar, S. 2008. Creativity as a matter of choice: Prior experience and task instruction as boundary conditions for the positive effect of choice on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (3): 164–180.Google Scholar
Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. 2012. Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118 (2): 116–131.Google Scholar
Corbitt, J. N. 1998. The global awareness profile. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Dane, E. 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35 (4): 579–603.Google Scholar
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. 2003. Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. 1992. Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. 1989. Expertise and intelligence thinking: When is it worse to know better? In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence: 157–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. 2008. Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence. In Ang, S. & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications: 375–387. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 513–524.Google Scholar
Godart, F., Maddux, W. W., Shipilov, A. V., & Galinsky, A. 2015. Fashion with a foreign flair: Professional experiences abroad facilitate the creative innovations of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (1): 195–220.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. 1998. International personality item pool: A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality and other individual differences. [Cited 15 April 1998.] Available from URL: http//ipip.ori.org/ipip/ipip.html.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5 (9): 444–454.Google Scholar
Hall, C. C., Ariss, L., & Todorov, A. 2007. The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103 (2): 277–290.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. 2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6): 995–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klafehn, J., Banerjee, P., & Chiu, C-Y. 2008. Navigating cultures: The role of metacognitive cultural intelligence. In Ang, S. & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications: 318–331. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2): 195–229.Google Scholar
Kossowska, M., Matthaeus, W., & Necka, E. 1996. The cost of being competent: Expertise and rigidity in coping with novelty. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27 (1): 25–38.Google Scholar
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6): 1121–1134.Google Scholar
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. 2004. Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (3): 328–339.Google Scholar
Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C-Y. 2008. Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (4): 376–382.Google Scholar
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity? The when and how. American Psychologist, 63 (6): 169–181.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Little, D., & Kalish, M. L. 2007. Knowledge and expertise. In Durso, F. T. (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed): 83-109. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maddux, M. W., & Galinsky, A. D. 2009. Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (5): 1047–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menard, S. 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage University series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2): 81–97.Google Scholar
Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. 1992. Process analytic models of creativity capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 5 (2): 125–155.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Blair, C., Dailey, L., Lertiz, L. E., & Osburn, H. K. 2006. Errors in creative thought? Cognitive biases in a complex processing activity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40 (2): 75–109.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. 1991. Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4): 289–315.Google Scholar
Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. 2008. The new global manager: Learning cultures on the fly. Organizational Dynamics, 37 (1): 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. 2009. From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8 (4): 511–526.Google Scholar
Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. 2000. Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sense making in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1): 65–79.Google Scholar
Pronin, E. 2008. How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320 (5880): 1177–1180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. 2004. Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111 (3): 781–799.Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. 2007. Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (6): 933–946.Google Scholar
Shen, J., & Darby, R. 2006. Training and management development in Chinese multinational enterprises. Employee Relations, 28 (4): 342–362.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. 1986. Synopsis of a triarchic theory of human intelligence. In Irvine, S. H. & Newstead, S. E. (Eds). Intelligence and cognition. Dorrecht, Germany: Hijhoff.Google Scholar
Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. 2012. Getting the most out of living abroad: Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (3): 520–542.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. 1988. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2): 193–210.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34 (4): 397–423.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. C. 2006. Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31 (1): 78–99.Google Scholar
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, R., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. 2012. Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6 (4): 295–313.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B. 2001. Creative cognition, conceptual combination, and the creative writing of Stephen R. Donaldson. American Psychologist, 56 (4): 350–354.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., & Saunders, K. N. 2002. The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition, 30 (2): 199–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. 1997. Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S.M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative though: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Books.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications (structural analysis in the social sciences). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. 1998. Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26 (4): 716–730.Google Scholar
Wood, E. D., & El Mansour, B. 2009. Performance interventions that assist Chinese expatriates’ adjustment and performance: Toward a conceptual approach. Human Resource Development Review, 9 (2): 194–218.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 682–696.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y., & Wang, Z. 2015. The present and future of cross-cultural management education in China. The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management, 218–226. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 14 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 13.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 13.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 25.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 13.9 KB