The thesis to this point has succeeded in documenting more similarities between nations in values than differences. However, one provocative difference did emerge in Study 4: Art was more strongly associated with the value of creativity in the British sample than the Brazilian one, whereas science was barely mentioned in either of the two countries. This finding is the focus of the present chapter. In Studies 9 and 10, I will explore whether this specific difference in value instantiation can be replicated using different methods. Given that the similarities between countries have been found to be in most cases much larger than differences, it is interesting to explore examples where differences are actually larger, to see if the differences hold. A further aim of this chapter is to explore whether there is a bias against science in lay conceptions of
creativity.
Creativity and Science
It is an all-too familiar scene. I am at a party and meet a couple. “What do you do?” they ask. “I’m a scientist.” I can already see the first sign of panic and disengagement. “What kind?” they ask politely. “I’m a molecular biologist. I study how information in my genes is used to make proteins.” “Oh, that sounds fascinating and terribly clever. I’m afraid I was never very good at science or maths. I know nothing at all about it.” (…) Now imagine the reverse. Suppose I had said: “Oh I really know nothing about literature or arts or music.” The same people who proudly proclaim their ignorance about science and maths would consider me an uncivilised boor. – Venki Ramakrishnan in The Guardian, 28 February 2016.
This example, provided by the President of the Royal Society and Nobel
laureate, is consistent with negative stereotypes about scientists. Although scientists are usually considered to be helpful and wise, they are also perceived by urban students and high school students as old, frightening, and colourless (McNarry & O’Farrell, 1971). The work of a scientist is sometimes even considered as dull and tedious (Ahlgren & Walberg, 1973; Kind, Jones, & Barmby, 2007; Mead & Métraux, 1957). These results
are also mirrored in research on lay conceptions of creativity, in which artists were judged to be more creative compared to scientists (Glăveanu, 2014). Improving the way in which science is perceived is important, because this may impact the economic future of a country (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003).
In the course of three studies conducted in two countries I investigated the extent to which scientists and the products of natural sciences are perceived as creative and whether the mode of presentation influences the lay-conception. Below I first outline why the lay conception of creativity is important for sciences, before I discuss previous research and the importance of conducting replications outside of Western countries.
Adding creativity to the large body of research about attitudes towards science (e.g., Osborne et al., 2003) is important because creativity is generally considered as a positive construct that can lead to significant progress in every aspect of the life, including art, everyday life, and sciences (Cropley, Kaufman, & Runco, 2010). Therefore, I assume that any profession or product will be evaluated more positively when it is considered to be creative. By contrast, if science is not perceived as creative, this will result in science being evaluated as less attractive. This potential effect has implications for investment in science and for attracting young people into scientific careers.
Before considering lay conceptions of creativity, it is useful to consider issues in the generalizability of psychological findings. Because more than 90% of participants in psychological studies reside in Western countries, with most living in the USA (Arnett, 2008), concerns have been raised about the generalizability of psychological findings. For example, it has been argued that many psychological phenomena cannot easily be generalized from participants of “Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and
follows that studies should be replicated outside of WEIRD-countries to address this issue of generalizability.
This claim has been echoed in the emerging study of the cultural psychology of creativity (Glăveanu, 2010a, 2010b). This cultural framework is as an extension of the social psychology of creativity (Glăveanu, 2010a), in which situational causes of (perceived) creativity are emphasized, rather than the internal dispositions that are typically studied (Kasof, 1995). In a cultural framework, creativity can be defined as a “complex socio-cultural-psychological process that, by working with ‘culturally- impregnated’ materials within an intersubjective space, leads to the generation of artifacts that are evaluated as new and signi cant by one or more persons or
communities at a given time” (Glăveanu, 2010a, p. 87). In other words, creativity and the tradition of a culture interact; what is innovative needs to be judged in the context of cultural customs and habits. Consequently, Western understanding of and biases
towards creativity should also be examined outside of Western countries, because creativity is socially constructed (Glăveanu, 2010a). In this chapter, I illustrate the importance of this view by comparing the lay-conception of creativity in a typical
WEIRD nation, the United Kingdom, with one of the so-called emerging nations: Brazil. In past research, artistic professions have been found to be perceived as more creative compared to professions from other domains, including scientific domains (Glăveanu, 2014). This phenomenon is called the art bias and refers to “the
misunderstanding of creativity that equates it with artistic talent” (Runco, 2007, p. 384). The art bias can be explained by the romantic vision of a divinely inspired artist, an idea that can be traced back to ancient Greece (Glăveanu, 2014; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). This implicit theory of creativity has important implications. For example, parents may think of their children as creative when they are artistic. If a child cannot draw, parents
may not regard them as creative (Runco, 2007), which may result in the ‘golem effect’ (Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal, 1982), a form of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby low expectations result in low achievement. This highlights why it is important to study lay conceptions of creativity: People usually do not rely on formal definitions and theories of creativity when making their judgments, and their own definitions may be quite different from the formal ones (Lim & Plucker, 2001).
In studies exploring the art bias, comparisons have been made between objects relevant to art and objects not relevant to art. For example, Glăveanu (2011) found that participants predominantly chose an art-related depiction when asked to select a symbol that represents creativity. In a more recent study, Glăveanu (2014) found that
participants considered creativity to be a key requirement for professions in the art domain (e.g., painter, writer) to a greater extent than for professions in the natural sciences (e.g., mathematician, engineer), social sciences and humanities (e.g., philosopher, lawyer), and everyday life (e.g., gardener, hairdresser).
However, both of Glăveanu’s studies used participants in WEIRD-countries (mainly UK and USA) and Poland. Investigating the lay-conception of creativity in Brazil would permit further insights into the potential universality of the art bias. Brazil is particularly interesting because Jeitinho, the ‘Brazilian way’ of problem solving, is closely linked to creativity (Ferreira, Fischer, Porto, Pilati, & Milfont, 2012). Jeitinho may have its origins in an interaction between aftermaths of colonization, corruption, and a hierarchical society (Ferreira et al., 2012). The aim is “to overcome bureaucracy but also to break laws and norms to attain a certain objective” (p. 332) through the use of “creativity, deception, interpersonal empathy, and cordiality” (p. 333). Ferreira et al. identified three components of Jeitinho: corruption, creativity, and social norm breaking. Examples include bribing a police officer, coming up with an idea for a birthday present
despite being penniless, and inviting a grandmother to go shopping in order to be able to use one of the parking spots close to a shopping mall that are reserved for the elderly.
It can be argued that both art and Jeitinho are strongly related to creativity, because both are related to divergent thinking, an important aspect of creativity (Runco, 2007). Divergent thinking, as opposed to convergent thinking, explores multiple
possible solutions for a problem. For example, there are multiple ways to make a painting or sculpture (examples of art), just as there are multiple ways to create a birthday present despite not having any money (example of Jeitinho; Ferreira et al., 2012). However, both the means and the ends differ for art and Jeitinho: Art involves creating something aesthetically pleasing or emotionally arousing but not necessarily useful (e.g., “art for art’s sake”), whereas Jeitinho is more specific, mostly related to solving everyday problems. Furthermore, as noted above, judgment of what is creative depends on traditions that may differ between Brazil and the UK. Moreover, the Brazilian conception of creativity is likely to have been influenced by the notions of ingenuity and resourcefulness inherent in Jeitinho. Consequently, I expect the art bias to be more strongly evident among British participants, whereas Brazilian participants are expected to judge professions, objects, and actions related to solving everyday problems as more creative than professions, objects, and actions related to art.
Overview of the Present Studies
I followed the two-step design of previous studies that has been described as the gold standard (Glăveanu, 2014): First, qualitative, open-ended data were collected. Second, the results were used to create quantitative response scales (cf. Runco, 2007). In Study 8, which is a subset of Study 4, I have used a qualitative-exploratory design similar to that used in previous studies (e.g., Glăveanu, 2014).9 Based on the results, I
9Studies 8 and 9 were designed and the data were collected between February and September 2014. Only
developed subsequent studies in which I asked participants how much creativity is needed for several professions (Study 9), and how much creativity is needed to come up with an idea or to create various objects (Study 10).
Because I was interested in the comparison between Brazil and the UK, I
excluded all participants who were not from one of these two countries prior to any data analysis. The studies were conducted in Brazilian Portuguese for Brazilian participants. All material was successfully back-translated from Brazilian Portuguese to English.