Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Differences in creative mindset between Germany and

Poland: The mediating effect of individualism and
collectivism夽
Min Tang a , Christian Werner a , Maciej Karwowski b,∗
a
University of Applied Management, Germany
b
The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study provides the first examination of cross-national differences in the creative
Received 23 January 2016 mindsets, measured by the Creative Mindset Scale (Karwowski, 2014) and provides an
Received in revised form 27 March 2016 explanation for these differences in terms of vertical and horizontal individualism and
Accepted 11 May 2016
collectivism, measured by the Cultural Orientation Scale (Triandis & Gelfland, 1998). Pol-
Available online 13 May 2016
ish students (n = 429) perceived creativity as more fixed and less malleable than German
students (n = 332). Drawing on previous theorizing that individualism is related to higher
Keywords:
intensity of fixed theories, while collectivism is positively related rather to growth-type
Creative mindset
mindset, we hypothesized that cross-national differences in horizontal and vertical indi-
Fixed and growth mindset
Individualism vidualism and collectivism were able to explain the relationship between country and both
Collectivism mindsets. This hypothesis was confirmed—vertical and horizontal individualism and collec-
Poland tivism fully mediated the differences between countries in the growth versus fixed mindset
Germany preferences. The findings were discussed in relation to the creativity and cross-cultural
research.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Creativity, understood as a human capacity to produce ideas which are both novel and appropriate (Amabile, 1996;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), drives not only cultural (Sawyer, 2006) but also economic development
(Florida, 2002). Hence, the striving towards creativity development is observed across the world (Florida, 2005), driven by
the belief that being more creative will be an advantage in global economy.
However, to manage with the effort that creative activity requires, people should be convinced that their creative potential
can be enhanced or trained. One of the most pervading creativity myths, not only in the field of education (Plucker, Beghetto,
& Dow, 2004) but also shared across disciplines (Sawyer, 2006) is that creativity is an inheritable trait, which cannot be
developed. This assumption is in contrast to the scientific evidence that several interventions were highly successful in
stimulating the creative potential (e.g., Dziedziewicz, Gajda, & Karwowski, 2014; Dziedziewicz, Oledzka, & Karwowski,
2013; Hu et al., 2013; Karwowski & Soszyński, 2008) and meta-analyses confirm the effectiveness of the enhancement of

夽 Polish part of the study presented in this article was possible thanks to a grant 0193/IP3/2015/73 (Iuventus Plus Program) for Maciej Karwowski.
∗ Corresponding author at: Creative Education Lab, Department of Educational Studies, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Szczesliwicka St., 40,
02-353 Warsaw, Poland.
E-mail addresses: maciek.karwowski@gmail.com, mackar@aps.edu.pl (M. Karwowski).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.004
1871-1871/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
32 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

creative abilities (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a, 2004b). However, laypeople often endorse a fixed creativity mindset
(Karwowski, 2014), believing that one’s level of creativity is stable and unchangeable.
In this paper, we address the question of cross-national differences between growth and fixed creative mindsets and
examine the potential role of intercultural characteristics as variables explaining these differences. More precisely, we build
on previous works on creative mindsets and examine the possible influence of cultural orientations on growth vs. fixed cre-
ative mindset. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the creativity literature which focuses on cultural explanations for
creative mindsets. Previous analyses of the creative mindsets, understood as “the beliefs about the stable-versus-malleable
character and the nature of creativity” (Karwowski, 2014, p. 62), focused on the structure of the mindset and their individual-
level predictors. Karwowski (2014) has demonstrated that growth and fixed mindsets form two relatively independent (albeit
negatively correlated) factors, rather than one continuum with two ends. The fact that creativity may be simultaneously
perceived as both stable and changeable is very likely a consequence of the complex nature of the creativity phenomenon
(Kaufman, 2016). As people are able to spontaneously recognize different types and forms of creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman,
2015; Karwowski, 2009; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2013; Puente-Diaz, Maier, Brem, & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2016) they may spon-
taneously ascribe different mindsets to different levels of creativity. People with higher expertise and the awareness that
creativity is not only the Big-C characteristic, but mini-, little- or Pro-C as well (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009) may hold
growth mindset for lower level of creativity, but at the same time have quite a fixed Big-C creativity mindset.
The two-factor structure of the creativity mindset was recently demonstrated with a Polish sample (Karwowski, 2014),
as well as with samples from Germany, Spain, UK, Latvia, and China (Karwowski, Werner, & Tang, 2015). Importantly, a
recent study (Karwowski, Werner et al., 2015) has also demonstrated the measurement invariance of the Creative Mindset
Scale (Karwowski, 2014) across Poland and Germany, allowing for a direct comparison of latent means of these constructs
in these countries.
Several individual-level attributes of both mindsets were tested to date. It was demonstrated that the growth mindset was
strongly positively related to creative self-beliefs (Karwowski, 2014), like creative self-efficacy (Beghetto, 2006; Karwowski,
2011) and creative personal identity – constructs explaining creative behavior as well (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007;
Karwowski, 2012; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). It was also positively associated with the effectiveness in solving insight tasks,
while the fixed mindset was a negative predictor of these abilities (Karwowski, 2014, Study 3). In another study (O’Connor,
Nemeth, & Akutsu, 2013) growth mindset was positively associated with creative potential (i.e. fluency and originality of
thinking), the interests in creative activity, and creative achievement. Importantly, even quite subtle priming with fixed
mindset decreased creative thinking (O’Connor et al., 2013, Study 3).
Thus, the malleable (or growth) mindset seems to be especially beneficial for creative activities and, subsequently, future
creative achievements as well. It was found to be positively related to academic risk-taking behavior and lower school-
related stress (Yamazaki & Kumar, 2013). On the contrary, there are convincing empirical arguments, that the fixed mindset
is positively associated with a “creative mortification”, i.e. “the loss of one’s willingness to pursue a particular creative
aspiration following a negative performance outcome” (Beghetto, 2014, p. 266, see also Beghetto & Dilley, 2016).
Despite the growing interest in the creative mindsets in creativity literature, little is known about potential cultural factors
that may shape them. As creative mindsets fit into the wider category of “creative beliefs” (Karwowski and Barbot, 2016),
there are good reasons to believe that creative mindsets develop under social and cultural influences as other self-beliefs
do (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015). More precisely, in one of the early discussions about the possible cultural
differences about mindset in general (not specifically creative mindset) (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a), it was proposed that
the concept of the fixed mindset is much more typical for individualistic cultures and societies, while the growth mindset,
strongly related to the effort, is not only highly valued, but also much more present in collectivist societies (see also Dweck,
Chiu, & Hong, 1995b; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Heine et al., 2001; Lillard, 1998). There is extensive cross-
cultural research (e.g., Stevenson & Lee, 1990; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992) showing that in the collectivistic Asian culture
the focus on the possibility of growth and treating cognitive traits as malleable is stronger than in the West, which is
characterized by higher individualism. Hence our study takes into account the individualism vs. collectivism dimension as
a promising candidate factor explaining cross-cultural differences in creative mindsets.

1. Individualism-collectivism and creative mindsets

Individualism and collectivism are “cultural syndromes,” based on which various social and psychological processes are
organized (Triandis, 1995). This dimension of culture has been used extensively on a wide range of topics in psychological
and social sciences (for a review, see Hamamura, 2012) and has been used very often to explain the differences between
the East and the West in creativity studies as well (e.g., Niu and Sternberg, 2003; Werner et al., 2010; Yi, Hu, Plucker, &
McWilliams, 2013).
By definition, individualism is a social pattern of loosely linked individuals who see themselves as independent rather than
interdependent individuals. Primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, and rights, such individuals give priority
to their personal goals over the goals of others, and emphasize rational analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
associating with others. In contrast, collectivism is a social pattern of closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts
of one or more collectives. Primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by, those collectives, such individuals
are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals, and emphasize their connectedness
to members of these collectives (Triandis, 1995).
 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40 33

While there are abundant studies comparing the cultural dimensions of the participants from the Eastern and Western
countries, it is rare to compare countries such as Germany and Poland, which fall into the same regional categories. Among
the few studies which have compared Poland and Germany, very few differences were found. For example, in their meta-
analysis of 50 studies involving 46 countries about individualism in comparison to the U.S. and Canada, Oyserman Coon, and
Kemmelmeier (2002) found that Germany is fairly as individualistic as the USA (d = 0.01) and that Poland is a bit less indi-
vidualistic than USA (d = 0.16). In terms of collectivism, Germany and Poland scored similarly and both are not significantly
different from the U.S. It is interesting, however, that this meta-analysis also demonstrated that generally Central-European
countries were more individualistic and less collectivist than Western European countries, a finding contrary to the classic
Hofstede (1980) results. In another study, Meeuwesen, van den Brink-Muinen, and Hofstede (2009) did not reveal significant
differences between the German and Polish participants in the individualism-collectivism dimension, with Germany scoring
67 and Poland 60 in individualism on a scale ranging from 0 to 100.
However, culture is dynamic and caution should be taken in generalizing results of older studies. As early as in 1980s, in
his seminal book about cultural dimensions, Hofstede (1980) already warned that his country-level analysis of individualism
could not explain individual behavior, as the cultural orientation is shaped by the economic and historical circumstances of
the 1970s when the study was conducted. Indeed, a recent large-scale meta-analysis (Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012) based
on 451 studies representing over half a million individuals from 49 countries and regions about the cultural dimensions
found that the precision of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimension scores have been decreasing over time. While these scores
correlated remarkably strongly with theoretically relevant indicators from the 1980s, the correlations typically weakened for
each subsequent decade thereafter (Taras et al., 2012). The modernization theory that elucidates the increase in individualism
during a steady period of economic growth (Inglehart, 1997; Kashima et al., 2004) can be used to explain this difference. The
link between societal and economic modernization and individualism is robust and is found across cultures (Hamamura,
2012). For example, even in China the personality profile of Chinese people has shifted towards individual orientation over
the years (Yang, 1986) and a rise of individualism over the past decades has also been observed in Japan (Yamagishi &
Yamagishi, 1994).
To understand better the interplay of culture and people’s feelings, perceptions or behaviors, it’s necessary to update our
knowledge of the continuum of individualism-collectivism, including the refinement of the conceptualization of the two
concepts (Brewer & Chen, 2007). Among others, the decomposition of the individualism and collectivism on the horizontal
vs. vertical social relationships provides one promising solution (Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). The horizontal
patterns assume that one self is more or less similar to other selves versus vertical patterns emphasize hierarchies and
maintain that one self is different from other selves. Combined with individualism and collectivism, these social relationship
patterns produce four distinct cultural orientation dimensions: The horizontal individualistic (HI) people want to be unique
and distinct from groups, but are not particularly interested in becoming distinguished; the vertical individualistic (VI)
people, in contrast, want to become distinguished and acquire status. The horizontal collectivist (HC) people see themselves
as being similar to others and emphasize common goals, interdependence, and sociability. The vertical collectivistic (VC)
people emphasize the integrity of the in-group, and are ready to sacrifice their personal goals for the in-group goals.
To our knowledge, there are no such studies that examine people’s perceptions of creativity (e.g., creative mindset) taking
into consideration of the influence of cultural dimensions. Our study aims at filling this gap. Although we are interested
in the cross-national (Poland vs. Germany) differences in the creative mindsets, we focus on the role the individualism
and collectivism may play in explaining these differences. Synthesizing the previous discussions on the possible cultural
influences on the mindsets (Dweck et al., 1995b), with the research on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism
dimensions, we hypothesize collectivism to be related to the growth rather than fixed creative mindset. By analogy, we expect
individualism to be related to the fixed rather than the growth mindset, but this is expected especially in the case of the
vertical individualism.

2. The present study

This cross-national study was driven by two research questions. First, what are the cultural differences in the intensity
of growth vs. fixed creativity mindset between Germany and Poland? Second, what is the role of horizontal vs. vertical
individualism and collectivism as possible mediators, accounting for cross-national differences in mindsets? Cultures differ
in complexity (Chick, 1997) and though Poland and Germany are neighboring countries in Europe, these two countries differ
substantially in many perspectives such as history, language, the influence of religion, and the current stages of economic
development and modernization. These differences make it interesting and meaningful to compare the two countries in
cultural dimensions and explore the possible effect of the cultural differences on people’s beliefs (such as mindset). As
previous studies have already established the cross-national measurement invariance and construct equivalence of both
growth and fixed mindsets in Poland and Germany (Karwowski, Werner et al., 2015), we focus on the cultural differences
in creative mindset and the possible mediating effect of individualist vs. collectivist cultural orientations. Although we
hypothesize that culture shapes creative mindsets, while aspects of individualism and collectivism mediate this relationship,
due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we avoid excessively causal explanations. We maintain that our theorizing
assumes cultural syndromes (vertical vs. horizontal individualism vs. collectivism) to mediate the relationship between
34 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

culture and creative mindsets, rather than moderate this relationship – a line of theorizing which could be considered as
well.1

3. Method

3.1. Participants

In total, 761 Polish and German students participated in our study. The sample included more females (n = 470; 62%) than
males (n = 291, 38%) with the age ranging from 17 to 50 (M = 23.18, SD = 3.92). The Polish sample consisted of 429 students
(281 females, 66%) with the age ranging from 18 to 40 (M = 23, SD = 3.22). The German sample consisted of 332 students
(189 females, 57%) with the age ranging from 17 to 50 (M = 23.41, SD = 4.66). There were no age differences between the
Poles and Germans, F(1,760) = 1.95, p = 0.16, while the percentage of females in the Polish sample was higher than in the
German sample, ␹2 = 5.86, p = 0.02. Polish students were recruited mainly from social sciences (35%), humanities (28%), sci-
ence/engineering (21%) and medicine (17%). German students represented mainly social science (51%), science/engineering
(14%) or humanities (10%) and medicine (7%). Due to gender and study field differences, all analyses presented below were
conducted twice, with and without the control of gender and study field effects. As virtually no differences were found,
analyses with gender and major as covariates are not presented here.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. The creative mindset

We used the Creative Mindset Scale (CMS; Karwowski, 2014) to measure participants’ perceptions of the nature of
creativity (creative mindsets). This scale consists of 10 items with five measuring the fixed creative mindset (e.g., “You
either are creative or you are not – even trying very hard you cannot change much”) and five measuring the growth creative
mindset (e.g., “Anyone can develop his or her creative abilities up to a certain level”). Karwowski (2014) demonstrated stable
factor structure of this scale and appropriate properties estimated using the item response theory methodology. The recent
cross-cultural study (Karwowski, Werner et al., 2015) has confirmed the measurement invariance of the CMS across cultures.
A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = definitely not to 5 = definitely yes was used for the CMS.

3.2.2. Horizontal and vertical individualism/collectivism

To measure vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism we used the Culture Orientation Scale (COS; Triandis &
Gelfland, 1998). This 16-item scale covers the four dimensions of the cultural orientation, including Horizontal Individualism
(HI; e.g., “I’d rather depend on myself than others”), Vertical Individualism (VI; e.g., “Competition is the law of nature.”),
Horizontal Collectivism (HC; e.g., “I feel good when I cooperate with others”), and Vertical Collectivism (VC; e.g., “Parents and
children must stay together as much as possible”) with four items measuring each of the sub-dimensions. A 9-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 = never or definitely no to 9 = always or definitely yes was used for the COS. The descriptive statistics, inter-
correlations and reliabilities of the COS scales in the whole sample and among Polish and German students are presented in
Table 1.

3.3. Procedures

This study is part of a large-scale research project about implicit theories of creativity, which took the students 20 min
on average (SD = 10) to finish. The CMS (Karwowski, 2014), originally developed in Polish, was translated into German and
the COS (Triandis & Gelfland, 1998), originally in English, was translated into German and Polish. In both countries, back
translation technique was used to guarantee the quality of the translation. The whole data collection process was conducted
online, using a dedicated platform, created for the purpose of this study. Participants were treated in accordance with the
ethical guidelines set out by the American Psychological Association. They were not rewarded for participating and were
informed that they could withdraw at any time.

4. Results

The data were analyzed in two steps. Firstly, we focused on the cross-country comparisons in creative mindsets. The
descriptive statistics of all variables measured, the inter-correlations between variables as well as the results of the cross-
country comparisons are presented in Table 1 . Secondly, we created a structural equation model to examine whether and to
what extent, the observed differences in the creative mindsets are attributable to the differences in horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism.
Consistent with our hypothesis, the German students held stronger growth and lower fixed mindset than the Polish stu-
dents. Although significant, these differences were small in terms of the effect size when observed variables were compared

1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, cross-cultural comparisons and intercorrelations between variables used in the study.

Variable Poland (N = 429) Germany (N = 332) t (df = 759) Cohen’s d 1 2 3 4 5 6

M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

M (SD) ␣ M (SD) ␣

1 Growth mindset 3.77 (0.61) 0.66 3.89 (0.55) 0.60 −2.66** 0.19 (0.63) −0.41*** 0.16*** 0.03 0.23*** 0.20***
2 Fixed Mindset 2.50 (0.86) 0.85 2.36 (0.72) 0.76 2.52** 0.18 −0.34*** (0.82) 0.02 0.22*** −0.08* 0.03
−0.51***
3 Horizontal Individualism 6.81 (1.19) 0.68 6.53 (1.16) 0.61 3.24** 0.24 • 0.21∗∗∗ 0.06 (0.65) 0.41*** −0.04 0.09*
• 0.12∗ −0.06

4 Vertical Individualism 5.52 (1.47) 0.74 5.03 (1.41) 0.66 4.68*** 0.34 • 0.07 • 0.27*** • 0.53*** (0.71) −0.15*** 0.03
• 0.00 • 0.12* • 0.23***

5 Horizontal Collectivism 5.81 (1.31) 0.66 7.01 (1.12) 0.66 −13.40*** 0.97 • 0.21*** −0.00 0.08 0.06 (0.72) 0.45***
• 0.20*** −0.11 −0.09 −0.30***

6 Vertical Collectivism 6.11 (1.45) 0.76 6.70 (1.19) 0.64 −6.02*** 0.44 • 0.23*** 0.09 • 0.19*** 0.17*** • 0.44*** (0.72)
• 0.11* −0.04 • 0.00 −0.10 • 0.33***

Note. Values in parentheses in the brackets on the diagonal are Cronbach’s ␣s. Correlations between variables obtained in the whole sample are presented above the diagonal. Correlations between variables
obtained in the each country are presented below the diagonal – the higher value was obtained in the Polish sample, the lower in the German sample.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

35
36 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

Fig. 1. Structural equation model explaining cross-country differences in the growth and the fixed mindsets, using vertical and horizontal individualism
and collectivism characteristics as predictors.
Note. HI = horizontal individualism; VI = vertical individualism; HC = horizontal collectivism; VC = vertical collectivism. P1, P2 = Parcel 1, Parcel 2,
It1–It5 = Item1–Item5. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

(Cohen’s ds 0.19 and 0.18, respectively). The Polish students were characterized by stronger horizontal (d = 0.24) and vertical
individualism (d = 0.34), while German students were significantly more collectivistic. The difference in vertical collectivism
was moderate (d = 0.44), while there was a large difference in horizontal collectivism (d = 0.97).
In the whole sample, the growth creative mindset correlated positively with both horizontal (r = 0.23) and vertical (r = 0.20)
collectivism, but also (albeit weakly) with horizontal individualism (r = 0.16). This pattern of the relationship was well-
replicated across both countries. Despite the differences in the exact values of the correlation coefficients, the directions of
the associations were the same. The fixed mindset in the whole sample correlated positively with the vertical collectivism
(r = 0.22), but negatively with horizontal collectivism (r = −0.08). Interestingly, although the positive relationship between
vertical collectivism and the fixed mindset was stable across both countries, the marginally significant, negative association
with vertical collectivism was observed only among German students (r = −0.11, p = 0.056).
The reliabilities of the individualism and collectivism scales were modest, likely due to the low number of items per
scale. To properly control for measurement error, we conducted structural equation modelling (SEM) using Mplus 7.1.
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015) with country as independent variable, growth and fixed mindsets as dependent variables
and horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism as mediators. We modelled horizontal and vertical individualism
and collectivism latent variables using parcels (each formed of an average of two items). Growth and fixed mindsets were
modelled as measured on ordinal scale. Hence, the weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment (WLSMV)
estimator were applied (Brown, 2006) (Fig. 1).
The model fits reasonably well accordingly to commonly used fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011), CFI = 0.92,
TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.061, 90% CI: 0.055, 0.066, and explained 19% of the variance of the growth mindset and 13% of the
variance of the fixed mindset. Reliabilities of latent variables, estimated by composite reliability index (H, see Silvia, 2011),
were acceptable or high, ranging from H = 0.69 in vertical individualism, H = 0.71 in horizontal individualism and H = 0.73 in
growth mindset, to H = 0.80 in horizontal collectivism, H = 0.89 in fixed mindset and H = 0.93 in vertical collectivism.
As previously reported, country significantly differentiated the level of individualism and collectivism, with higher hori-
zontal (␤ = −0.14) and vertical (␤ = −0.21) individualism being observed among Poles, and higher horizontal (␤ = 0.49) and
vertical (␤ = 0.26) collectivism of Germans (all ps < 0.001). Horizontal individualism translated positively into growth mind-
set (␤ = 0.34) and negatively into fixed mindset (␤ = −0.23), whereas the opposite pattern was observed in the case of vertical
individualism: it was negatively related to growth mindset (␤ = −0.14), but positively to fixed mindset (␤ = 0.42, all coeffi-
 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40 37

Table 2
Summary of indirect effects obtained in the SEM.

IV Mediator DV Unstandardized Standardized Specific

Specific Indirect Effect Indirect Effect (95%
(SE) bootstrap corrected CI)

Country HI Growth Mindset −0.02 (0.009) −0.05** (−0.09, −0.01)

Country HI Fixed Mindset 0.03 (0.01) 0.03** (0.004, 0.06)
Country VI Growth Mindset 0.01 (0.007) 0.03 (−0.01, 0.07)
Country VI Fixed Mindset −0.07 (0.02) −0.09*** (−0.15, −0.03)
Country HC Growth Mindset 0.05 (0.01) 0.11*** (0.05, 0.17)
Country HC Fixed Mindset −0.05 (0.02) −0.06** (−0.12, −0.001)
Country VC Growth Mindset 0.02 (0.008) 0.04** (0.01, 0.08)
Country VC Fixed Mindset 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (−0.02, 0.05)

Note: IV = independent variable, DV = dependent variable; SE = standard error; HI = horizontal individualism; VI = Vertical individualism; HC = horizontal
collectivism; VC = vertical collectivism.
*
p < 0.05
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

cients being statistically significant). Both horizontal (␤ =0.22) and vertical (␤ = 0.17) collectivism were positively related to
the growth mindset, but only horizontal collectivism was weakly and negatively related to the fixed mindset (␤ = −0.13).
To examine if horizontal vs. vertical individualism and collectivism mediate the relationship between country and growth
vs. fixed mindset, we estimated the indirect effects. More specifically, using the SEM approach with the four cultural orien-
tations as latent mediators, we estimated specific indirect effects of cultural orientations on creative mindsets (Muthén &
Asparaouhov, 2015). Mplus uses bootstrap-corrected confidence intervals (in our study, we used 1000 bootstrap samples) to
assess whether confidence intervals around indirect estimates contain zero. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Consistent with our expectations, all indirect effects except the mediation of the vertical collectivism on the fixed mindset
and vertical individualism on the growth mindset were statistically significant. More importantly, the direct effect of country
on growth vs. fixed mindset which was significant when the effect of individualism and collectivism were not controlled
(␤ = 0.10; p = 0.03 in the case of growth and ␤ = −0.12, p = 0.003 in the case of fixed mindset) was no longer significant after
controlling the effect of individualism and collectivism (␤ = −0.05; p = 0.34 in the case of growth and ␤ = −0.09; p = 0.07 in
the case of fixed mindset). These results show the full mediation of individualism and collectivism in the model. Although
standardized indirect effects were generally small (ranging from 0.02, ns to 0.11, p < 0.001), they were not only statistically
significant but also consistent with the effects presented in Fig. 1.

5. Discussion

This study is the first attempt of a cross-national comparison of creative mindsets and provides an explanation for the
differences using classic categories of the cross-cultural psychology: vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism
(Triandis & Gelfland, 1998). Based on the previous works (Dweck et al., 1995b; Lillard, 1998; Stevenson and Lee, 1990;
Stevenson and Stigler, 1992), we hypothesized that collectivism would be positively related to the growth creative mindset,
while individualism will be associated with the fixed creative mindset.
With samples from Poland and Germany, two European countries which are geographically close to each other but
historically, politically, and religiously quite different, we did find relatively weak, yet significant difference in their creative
mindsets: The Polish students tended to perceive creativity as a fixed trait, whereas the German students were more likely
to see creativity as malleable. As we demonstrated, this difference can be fully attributed to the “cultural syndromes”: the
levels of individualism and collectivism, which fully mediated the effect of country on the creative mindset. Polish students
who were found significantly more individualistic (both vertically and horizontally) held stronger fixed and weaker growth
mindset than German students, who were found more collectivistic in our study. In particular, the German students scored
significantly higher in the horizontal collectivism than the Polish students (d = 0.97). Although surprising at the very first sight,
these differences are consistent with the existing empirical findings (e.g., Kemmelmeier et al., 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002)
and the predictions of the modernization theory (Inglehart, 1997). With samples from seven countries including Germany
and Poland, Kemmelmeier et al. (2003) found that vertical individualism was correlated positively with authoritarianism
and horizontal individualism was unrelated to authoritarianism except in post-Communist societies like Poland. This result
can help explain the more fixed mindset of the Polish students on creativity. Another study showed that cultures high in
horizontal individualism tend to be egalitarian, with individuals being independent and of comparable power and status,
whereas cultures high in vertical individualism tend to launch competition between individuals, resulting in acceptable
inequality between individuals (Oyserman et al., 2002). Some scholars maintained that the distinction of horizontal vs.
vertical cultural orientation resembles the power distance dimension of Hofstede (1980) (e.g., Oyserman, 2006; Shavitt,
Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006). Indeed, in many cross-cultural studies, the Poles scored higher in power distance than the
Germans (e.g, Hofstede, 1980; Shavitt, Torelli, & Riemer, 2011; Taras et al., 2012). More inequality-accepting, competition-
based vertical individualism, which is close to stereotypically perceived individualism (Oyserman et al., 2002) and also
38 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

the power distance (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfland, 1995), is more closely related to the perception of creativity as
stable and non-changeable characteristic (fixed mindset). The more equality-accepting, horizontal individualism was able
to predict both the growth mindset (positively) and the fixed mindset (negatively). Hence there are good reasons to believe
that the horizontal-vertical dimension is as important in explaining creative mindsets as the individualism-collectivism
dimension.
While our hypothesis was quite clearly confirmed in the case of the collectivism – both vertical and horizontal collectivist
orientations were positively related to the growth mindset and less systematically related to the fixed mindset – even more
interesting pattern was found in the case of the individualism. We have observed that, while vertical individualism was a
strong positive (␤ = 0.42) predictor of the fixed mindset (consistently with our expectations), the horizontal individualism
was a moderate (␤ = −0.23) negative predictor of the fixed mindset. Interestingly, horizontal individualism was a positive
and robust (␤ = 0.34) predictor of the growth mindset. Hence, while the role of the collectivism seems to be quite clear
and unequivocal, in the case of the individualism the situation is more complex. Our results suggest that the type of the
individualism (vertical vs. horizontal) plays a crucial role in understanding its relations with different creative mindsets.

5.1. Limitations and future directions

The results of our study should be read in light of its limitations. At least three of them should be pointed out and
addressed in future studies. First, despite the differences between Polish and German participants in terms of both mindsets
and cultural orientations, both these groups are relatively similar and belong to widely defined “Western world”. Hence, our
results should be replicated and extended to more differentiated samples from different parts of the world. Nevertheless,
the observed differences are still meaningful and consistent with the hypotheses deduced from the existing literature.
The limited reliability of the measures we have used may be considered as the second limitation of our study. We have
to acknowledge, that the internal consistency of both measures we used (the CMS and the COS) was not very high (albeit
still acceptable). Nevertheless, this limitation does not form a serious threat to the validity of our findings. Usually the scales
comprising of limited number of items have not achieved high internal consistency (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wiśniewska, &
Gralewski, 2013). The fact that the reliabilities we have obtained are similar to those from previous studies (Karwowski,
2014; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) and the confirmed validity of the measures through this study, allows us to trust the findings
we have obtained.
Last but not least, the third limitation of our study lies in its cross-sectional design which makes decisive causal claims
premature. Although we did hypothesize that culture may influence creative mindsets, similarly as it influences self-beliefs in
general (Heine et al., 1999), correlational study demonstrating cross-national differences is for obvious reasons insufficient to
conclude about causal relationship. Even more importantly, our analyses have demonstrated that cross-national differences
between Polish and German students in creative mindsets were generally small, and cultural syndromes – vertical and
horizontal individualism and collectivism – played much more prominent role in explaining the differences in perceiving
creativity as fixed or malleable. Hence, even if culture (or country) indeed plays a role here, its effect is in large part indirect
and influence the perception of creativity via building individual or collectivist orientations. We recommend that the effects
of horizontal and vertical individualism on growth and fixed mindsets we have observed in our study should be replicated
and extended in future experimental studies. If manipulation with vertical versus horizontal individualistic cues would
change the level of growth versus fixed mindset, it could not only form an important area of future theorizing but also be
useful for practitioners (e.g., teachers or managers) interested in fostering growth creative mindsets.

6. Conclusion

The conclusion of our study is quite straightforward – culture indeed accounts for the creative mindsets. Culture’s
influence, however, is not necessarily direct. Quite the opposite: culture may shape creative mindsets via its influence
on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Individualistic attitudes and orientations, especially those asso-
ciated with the vertical level, are very likely to result in a fixed perception of creativity. Motivational consequences of such
implicit theory are well-known as being detrimental for creativity (Amabile, 1996). On the other hand, a more collectivist
orientation with effort-based explanations of the performance seems to be especially fruitful for the growth mindset. In
spite of the overall consistent results suggested by the current study, more research is needed to further examine the role of
culture on creative mindset, including involving more substantially different countries in the comparison and taking more
cultural dimensions into the analysis.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams? Toward understanding creative mortification in children and adolescents. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 85–95.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Promise and pitfalls in differentiating amongst the Cs of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 240–241.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447–457.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortification: an initial exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 266–276.
 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40 39

Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism.
Psychological Review, 114, 133–151.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Chick, G. (1997). Cultural complexity: the concept and its measurement. Cross-Cultural Research, 31, 275–307.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: a world from two perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333.
Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4 to 6-year old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 9, 85–95.
Dziedziewicz, D., Gajda, A., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Developing intercultural competencies and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 32–42.
Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, R. L. (2005). The flight of the creative class. New York: Harper Business.
Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism-collectivism in the United States and Japan.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 3–24.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard. Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and
North America: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599–615.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students’ scientific creativity: the learn to think intervention program.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jaussi, K. B., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think, and I do: the role of personal identity, self-efficacy: and cross-applications of experiences in
creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 247–258.
Karwowski, M., & Barbot, B. (2016). Creative self-beliefs: their nature, development and correlates. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in
cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 302–326). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karwowski, M., & Soszyński, M. (2008). How to develop creative imagination? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 163–171.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big Five personality factors as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and creative
personal identity: does gender matter? Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 215–232.
Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-concept is moderated by students’ gender. Learning and
Individual Differences, 44, 1–8.
Karwowski, M., Werner, C. H., & Tang, M. (2015). Creative mindset measurement invariance across countries. Unpublished manuscript.
Karwowski, M. (2009). I’m creative, but am I Creative? Similarities and differences between self-evaluated small and Big C creativity in Poland.
International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19, 7–26.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask. . . But sometimes it hurts to believe: polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154–164.
Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative role identity. Europe’s Journal of
Psychology, 8, 547–558.
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindset: measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 62–70.
Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E. S., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., & Macrae, K. (2004). Culture and self: are there within-culture differences in self between
metropolitan areas and regional cities? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 816–823.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 229–236.
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd ed.). Springer: New York.
Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg, M. S., . . . & Noels, K. A. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and
authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304–322.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Lillard, A. (1998). Ethnopsychologies: cultural variations in theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 3–32.
Meeuwesen, L., van den Brink-Muinen, A., & Hofstede, G. (2009). Can dimensions of national culture predict cross-national differences in medical
communication? Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 58–66.
Muthén, B. O., & Asparaouhov, T. (2015). Causal effects in mediation modelling: an introduction with applications to latent variables. Structural Equation
Modelling, 22, 12–23.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: the case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 103–114.
O’Connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 155–162.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Oyserman, D. (2006). High power, low power: and equality: culture beyond individualism and collectivism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 352–357.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and future
directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
Puente-Diaz, R., Maier, M. A., Brem, A., & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2016). Generalizability of the four C model of creativity: a cross-cultural examination of
creative perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 14–20.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: approaches and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149–179.
Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16, 325–342.
Shavitt, S., Torelli, C., & Riemer, H. (2011). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism: implications for understanding psychological processes.
In M. J. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (pp. 309–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2011). Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: examining the reliability of unusual uses, instances: and consequences tasks. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 6, 24–30.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical
and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospect and paradigm. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stevenson, H. W., & Lee, S. Y. (1990). Context of achievement: a study of American Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 55 (1–2, Serial No. 221).
40 M. Tang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 31–40

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York:
Summit Books.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of
World Business, 47, 329–341.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 1137–1148.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 118–128.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Werner, C., Cao, G., Tang, M., Tumasjan, A., Shi, J., Shen, J., & Spörrle, M. (2010). This is not about art, it’s about work: comparing Chinese to Germans
regarding creative performance on the basis of job-related verbal tasks. In A. G. Tang (Ed.), Creativity in business and education: interdisciplinary and
intercultural aspects (pp. 97–115). Singapore: Printers Pte Ltd.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166.
Yamazaki, S., & Kumar, V. K. (2013). Implicit theories of intelligence and creative ability: relationship with academic risk-taking and academic stress.
International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23, 25–40.
Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 106–170). Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.
Yi, X., Hu, W., Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. (2013). Is there a developmental slump in creativity in China? The relationship between organizational
climate and creativity development in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 22–40.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: a critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 22, 165–218.