Although evidence points to the existence of cultural differences in creativity, the mechanisms that underlie these differences are largely unknown. The twofold model of creativity posits two recursive stages: a generation phase and an evaluation phase. Considering that recent studies suggest that the left inferior frontal gyrus) L-IFG(may inhibit creativity during the evaluation phase, we hypothesized that manipulating IFG activity would affect participants' level of creativity. We further predicted that the IFG may be "hyperactive" in a culture that typically discourages uniqueness (e.g., Japan) as compared to a Western culture (e.g., Israel); therefore the effect of inhibiting the L-IFG was expected to be higher in Japanese. To support this hypothesis we altered L-IFG activation using tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) in 30 Japanese and 30 Israeli participants and examined the effect of anodal and cathodal stimulation on divergent thinking (DT). Regardless of culture, cathodal stimulation increased creativity compared to sham, while anodal stimulation diminished creativity. Although cultural differences were found in DT scores, stimulation had no differential effect between the cultures. Taken together, the results confirm that the L-IFG plays a key role in creativity across cultures. The null findings regarding the expected interaction between stimulation and culture are discussed.

No abstract

The main claim of the present study is that regulatory focus (i.e., promotion vs. prevention orientations) is an important explanatory variable of cross-cultural differences in actual and self-reported achievement-related behaviors and preferences, which include a component of autonomy. It adds explained variance in behavior above and beyond that of individualism/collectivism (I/C), and mediates the relations between I/C and behavior. Three studies are reported. The first compared Israeli Jews and Arabs on minimal initiation (n = 255), the second compared Israeli Jews and Japanese on creativity (n = 92), and the third compared Swiss, Mexican, and Indonesian samples on preference for mastery goals in education (n = 488). All three studies demonstrated the ability of regulatory focus scales to distinguish between cultures and to serve as meaningful predictors of actual and self-reported achievement-related behaviors. The measured I/C scales were found to be less relevant to behavior prediction than was regulatory focus. In most studies, regulatory focus scales mediated the relations between some of the I/C scales and behavior. The diversity of the measured behaviors and cultures supports the ecological validity of the findings.

Using the Global Trust Inventory, an integrated measure of trust toward 21 relationships and institutions, the structure of trust was explored in four East Asian societies (Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The Western model, in which trust is distributed among seven factors representing different branches of society, did not generalize to these East Asian societies, perhaps due to differences in culture and institutional power structures. Instead, two unique structures of trust were identified. Mainland China had a top-down structure of trust (the China model), in which trust is hierarchically separated between the central government and subordinate implementing bodies. The other three democratic East Asian societies shared a hybrid structure of trust (the Democratic East Asian model) that has a degree of similarity to both the China model and the Western model. Having established two similar, but still distinct models, a crosscultural comparison was made on the proportions of trust profiles generated by latent profile analysis. Mainland China had the largest proportion of people with a high propensity to trust, followed by Japan and South Korea, and Taiwan was the least trusting. Implications of the structure of trust and this alternative approach to conducting cross-cultural comparisons are discussed.

We assessed self-consistency (expressing similar traits in different situations) by having undergraduates in the United States ( n = 230), Australia ( n = 220), Canada ( n = 240), Ecuador ( n = 101), Mexico ( n = 209), Venezuela ( n = 209), Japan ( n = 178), Malaysia ( n = 254), and the Philippines ( n = 241) report the traits they expressed in four different social situations. Self-consistency was positively associated with age, well-being, living in Latin America, and not living in Japan; however, each of these variables showed a unique pattern of associations with various psychologically distinct sources of raw self-consistency, including cross-situationally consistent social norms and injunctions. For example, low consistency between injunctive norms and trait expressions fully explained the low self-consistency in Japan. In accord with trait theory, after removing normative and injunctive sources of consistency, there remained robust distinctive noninjunctive self-consistency (reflecting individuating personality dispositions) in every country, including Japan. The results highlight how clarifying the determinants and implications of self-consistency requires differentiating its distinctive, injunctive, and noninjunctive components.