Photo by Jose Llamas on Unsplash

What Is Cross-Cultural Psychology?

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

cross cultural psychology assignment

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

cross cultural psychology assignment

Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that looks at how cultural factors influence human behavior. While many aspects of human thought and behavior are universal, cultural differences can lead to often surprising differences in how people think, feel, and act.

Some cultures, for example, might stress individualism and the importance of personal autonomy. Other cultures may place a higher value on collectivism and cooperation among members of the group. Such differences can play an influential role in many aspects of life.

This article discusses the history of cross-cultural psychology, different types of cross-cultural psychology, and applications of this field. It also discusses the impact it has had on the understanding of human psychology.

What Is Culture?

Culture refers to many characteristics of a group of people, including attitudes , behaviors, customs, religious beliefs, and values that are transmitted from one generation to the next. Cultures throughout the world share many similarities but are also marked by considerable differences. For example, while people of all cultures experience happiness , how this feeling is expressed varies from one culture to the next.

The goal of cross-cultural psychologists is to look at both universal behaviors and unique behaviors to identify the ways in which culture influences behavior, family life, education, social experiences, and other areas.

History of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural psychology is an important topic. Researchers strive to understand both the differences and similarities among people of various cultures throughout the world.

The International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) was established in 1972, and this branch of psychology has continued to grow and develop since that time. Today, increasing numbers of psychologists investigate how behavior differs among various cultures throughout the world.

After prioritizing European and North American research for many years, Western researchers began to question whether many of the observations and ideas once believed to be universal might apply to cultures outside of these areas. Could their findings and assumptions about human psychology be biased based on the sample from which their observations were drawn?

Many of the findings described by psychologists are focused on a specific group of people, which some researchers have dubbed Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic, often referred to by the acronym WEIRD.

As a result, cross-cultural psychologists suggest that many observations about human thought and behavior may only be generalizable to specific subgroups. To develop a broader, richer understanding of people that can be applied to a wider variety of cultural settings, it is essential for researchers to also look at people from diverse cultures.

Despite recognizing that research has a strong Western bias, evidence suggests that this bias persists today. According to one analysis of six prominent psychology research journals, around 90% of participants in psychology research are drawn from Western, industrialized countries, 60% of which were American.

Cross-cultural psychologists work to rectify many of the biases that may exist in the current research and determine if the phenomena that appear in European and North American cultures also appear in other parts of the world.

Types of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Many cross-cultural psychologists choose to focus on one of two approaches:

  • The etic approach studies culture through an "outsider" perspective, applying one "universal" set of concepts and measurements to all cultures.
  • The emic approach studies culture using an "insider" perspective, analyzing concepts within the specific context of the observed culture.

It is also common for cross-cultural psychologists to take a combined emic-etic approach.

Meanwhile, some cross-cultural psychologists also study something known as ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism refers to a tendency to use your own culture as the standard by which to judge and evaluate other cultures.

In other words, taking an ethnocentric point of view means using your understanding of your own culture to gauge what is "normal." This can lead to biases and a tendency to view cultural differences as abnormal or in a negative light. It can also make it difficult to see how your cultural background influences your behaviors.

Cross-cultural psychologists often look at how ethnocentrism influences our behaviors and thoughts, including how we interact with individuals from other cultures.  

Psychologists are also concerned with how ethnocentrism can influence the research process. For example, a study might be criticized for having an ethnocentric bias.

Topics in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural psychology explores many subjects, focusing on how culture affects different aspects of development, thought, and behavior. Some important areas of study include:

  • Emotions : This field seeks to understand if all people experience emotions the same way and if emotional expressions are universal.
  • Language acquisition : This area explores whether language development follows the same path throughout different cultures.
  • Child development : This topic investigates how culture affects child development and whether different cultural practices influence the course of development. For example, psychologists might investigate how child-rearing practices differ in various cultures and how these practices impact variables such as achievement, self-esteem, and subjective well-being .
  • Personality : This area researches the degree to which different aspects of personality might be influenced or tied to cultural influences.
  • Social behavior : Cultural norms and expectations can have a powerful effect on social behavior, which this topic seeks to understand.
  • Family and social relationships : Familial and other interpersonal relationships can also be heavily influenced by societies and cultures.
  • Mental health: Professionals who provide mental health services should embrace cultural sensitivity. There can be significant differences in emotional expression, social behaviors, and spiritual beliefs across cultures that are "normal" within the context of the person's culture and should not be treated as a symptom or disorder.

Cross-cultural psychology seeks to understand how culture influences many different aspects of human emotion, thought, and behavior. Cross-cultural psychologists often study child development, personality, and social relationships. Mental health professionals should be culturally sensitive to differing norms in the context of culture.

Uses for Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural psychology touches on a wide range of topics, so students interested in other psychology topics may choose to also focus on this area of psychology. For example, a child psychologist might study how child-rearing practices in different cultures impact development.

Cross-cultural psychology can help teachers, educators, and curriculum designers who create multicultural education lessons and materials learn more about how cultural differences affect student learning, achievement, and motivation.

In the field of social psychology, applying a cross-cultural view might lead researchers to study how social cognition might vary in an individualist culture versus a collectivist culture. Do people from each culture rely on the same types of social cues? What cultural differences might influence how people perceive each other ?

Impact of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Many other branches of psychology focus on how parents, friends, and other people impact human behavior. However, most do not take into account the powerful impact that culture may have on individual human actions.

Cross-cultural psychology focuses on studying human behavior in a way that takes the effects of culture into account.

The study of cross-cultural psychology and the inclusion of more representative and diverse samples in psychology research is essential for understanding the universality and uniqueness of different psychological phenomena. Recognizing how different factors manifest in various cultures can help researchers better understand the underlying influences and causes.

A Word From Verywell

Cross-cultural psychology plays an important role in the understanding of behavior throughout the cultures of the world. While much of psychology research remains primarily Western and Eurocentric, there is a stronger awareness of the importance of representation and diversity in the research process.

Mathews G. Happiness, culture, and context . Int J Wellbeing. 2012;2(4):299-312. doi:10.5502/ijw.v2.i4.2

Lonner WJ. On the growth and continuing importance of cross-cultural psychology . Eye on Psi Chi. 2000;4(3):22-26. doi:10.24839/1092-0803.Eye4.3.22

International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology. About us .

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. Most people are not WEIRD . Nature . 2010;466(7302):29-29. doi:10.1038/466029a

Thalmayer AG, Toscanelli C, Arnett JJ. The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American ? American Psychologist . 2021;76(1):116-129. doi:10.1037/amp0000622

Wang Q. Why should we all be cultural psychologists? Lessons from the study of social cognition . Perspect Psychol Sci . 2016;11(5):583-596. doi:10.1177/1745691616645552

Cheung FM, van de Vijver FJ, Leong FT. Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture . Am Psychol . 2011;66(7):593-603. doi:10.1037/a0022389

Keith KD. Visual illusions and ethnocentrism: Exemplars for teaching cross-cultural concepts . Hist Psychol . 2012;15(2):171-176. doi:10.1037/a0027271

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Cross-cultural research allows you to identify important similarities and differences across cultures. This research approach involves comparing two or more cultural groups on psychological variables of interest to understand the links between culture and psychology better.

As Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain, cross-cultural comparisons test the boundaries of knowledge in psychology. Findings from these studies promote international cooperation and contribute to theories accommodating both cultural and individual variation.

However, there are also risks involved. Flawed methodology can produce incorrect cultural knowledge. Thus, cross-cultural scientists must address methodological issues beyond those faced in single-culture studies.

Methodology

Cross-cultural comparative research utilizes quasi-experimental designs comparing groups on target variables.

Cross-cultural research takes an etic outsider view, testing theories and standardized measurements often derived elsewhere. 

  • Studies can be exploratory , aimed at increasing understanding of cultural similarities and differences by staying close to the data.
  • In contrast, hypothesis-testing studies derive from pre-established frameworks predicting specific cultural differences. They substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings outside researcher expectations (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Each approach has tradeoffs. Exploratory studies broadly uncover differences but have limited explanatory power. While good for revealing novel patterns, exploratory studies cannot address the reasons behind cross-cultural variations.

Hypothesis testing studies substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings. Optimally, cross-cultural research should combine elements of both approaches.

Ideal cross-cultural research combines elements of exploratory work to uncover new phenomena and targeted hypothesis testing to isolate cultural drivers of observed differences (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Cross-cultural scientists should strategically intersect exploratory and theory-driven analysis while considering issues of equivalence and ecological validity.

Other distinctions include: comparing psychological structures versus absolute score levels; analysis at the individual versus cultural levels; and combining individual-level data with country indicators in multilevel modeling (Lun & Bond, 2016; Santos et al., 2017)

Methodological Considerations

Cross-cultural research brings unique methodological considerations beyond single-culture studies. Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain two key interconnected concepts – bias and equivalence.

Bias refers to systematic differences in meaning or methodology across cultures that threaten the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.

Bias signals a lack of equivalence, meaning score differences do not accurately reflect true psychological construct differences across groups.

There are three main types of bias:

  • Construct bias stems from differences in the conceptual meaning of psychological concepts across cultures. This can occur due to incomplete overlap in behaviors related to the construct or differential appropriateness of certain behaviors in different cultures.
  • Method bias arises from cross-cultural differences in data collection methods. This encompasses sample bias (differences in sample characteristics), administration bias (differences in procedures), and instrument bias (differences in meaning of specific test items across cultures).
  • Item bias refers to specific test items functioning differently across cultural groups, even for people with the same standing on the underlying construct. This can result from issues like poor translation, item ambiguity, or differential familiarity or relevance of content.

Techniques to identify and minimize bias focus on achieving equivalence across cultures. This involves similar conceptualization, data collection methods, measurement properties, scale units and origins, and more.

Careful study design, measurement validation, data analysis, and interpretation help strengthen equivalence and reduce bias.

Equivalence

Equivalence refers to cross-cultural similarity that enables valid comparisons. There are multiple interrelated types of equivalence that researchers aim to establish:

  • Conceptual/Construct Equivalence : Researchers evaluate whether the same theoretical construct is being measured across all cultural groups. This can involve literature reviews, focus groups, and pilot studies to assess construct relevance in each culture. Claims of inequivalence argue concepts can’t exist or be understood outside cultural contexts, precluding comparison.
  • Functional Equivalence : Researchers test for identical patterns of correlations between the target instrument and other conceptually related and unrelated constructs across cultures. This helps evaluate whether the measure relates to other variables similarly in all groups.
  • Structural Equivalence : Statistical techniques like exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are used to check that underlying dimensions of multi-item instruments have the same structure across cultures.
  • Measurement Unit Equivalence : Researchers determine if instruments have identical scale properties and meaning of quantitative score differences within and across cultural groups. This can be checked via methods like differential item functioning analysis.

Multifaceted assessment of equivalence is key for valid interpretation of score differences reflecting actual psychological variability across cultures.

Establishing equivalence requires careful translation and measurement validation using techniques like differential item functioning analysis, assessing response biases, and examining practical significance. Adaptation of instruments or procedures may be warranted to improve relevance for certain groups.

Building equivalence into the research process reduces non-equivalence biases. This avoids incorrect attribution of score differences to cultural divergence, when differences may alternatively reflect methodological inconsistencies.

Procedures to Deal With Bias

Researchers can take steps before data collection (a priori procedures) and after (a posteriori procedures) to deal with bias and equivalence threats. Using both types of procedures is optimal (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Designing cross-cultural studies (a priori procedure)

Simply documenting cultural differences has limited scientific value today, as differences are relatively easy to obtain between distant groups. The critical challenge facing contemporary cross-cultural researchers is isolating the cultural sources of observed differences (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).

This involves first defining what constitutes a cultural (vs. noncultural) explanatory variable. Studies should incorporate empirical measures of hypothesized cultural drivers of differences, not just vaguely attribute variations to overall “culture.”

Both top-down and bottom-up models of mutual influence between culture and psychology are plausible. Research designs should align with the theorized causal directionality.

Individual-level cultural factors must also be distinguished conceptually and statistically from noncultural individual differences like personality traits. Not all self-report measures automatically concern “culture.” Extensive cultural rationale is required.

Multi-level modeling can integrate data across individual, cultural, and ecological levels. However, no single study can examine all facets of culture and psychology simultaneously.

Pursuing a narrow, clearly conceptualized scope often yields greater returns than superficial breadth (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021). By tackling small pieces thoroughly, researchers collectively construct an interlocking picture of how culture shapes human psychology.

Sampling (a priori procedure)

Unlike typical American psychology research drawing from student participant pools, cross-cultural work often cannot access similar convenience samples .

Groups compared across cultures frequently diverge substantially in background characteristics beyond the cultural differences of research interest (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Demographic variables like educational level easily become confounds making it difficult to interpret whether cultural or sampling factors drive observed differences in psychological outcomes. Boehnke et al. (2011) note samples of greater cultural distance often have more confounding influences .

Guidelines exist to promote adequate within-culture representativeness and cross-cultural matching on key demographics that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the research hypotheses. This allows empirically isolating effects of cultural variables over and above sample characteristics threatening equivalence.

Where perfect demographic matching is impossible across widely disparate groups, analysts should still measure and statistically control salient sample variables that may form rival explanations for group outcome differences. This unpacks whether valid cultural distinctions still exist after addressing sampling confounds.

In summary, sampling rigor in subject selection and representativeness support isolating genuine cultural differences apart from method factors, jeopardizing equivalence in cross-cultural research.

Designing questions and scales (a priori procedure)

Cross-cultural differences in response styles when using rating scales have posed persistent challenges. Once viewed as merely nuisance variables requiring statistical control, theory now conceptualizes styles like social desirability, acquiescence, and extremity as a meaningful individual and cultural variation in their own right (Smith, 2004).

For example, an agreeableness acquiescence tendency may be tracked with harmony values in East Asia. Efforts to simply “correct for” response style biases can thus discount substantive culture-linked variation in scale scores (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Guidelines help adapt item design, instructions, response options, scale polarity, and survey properties to mitigate certain biases and equivocal interpretations when comparing scores across groups.

It remains important to assess response biases empirically through statistical controls or secondary measures. This evaluates whether cultural score differences reflect intended psychological constructs above and beyond style artifacts.

Appropriately contextualizing different response tendencies allows judiciously retaining stylistic variation attributable to cultural factors while isolating bias-threatening equivalence. Interpreting response biases as culturally informative rather than merely as problematic noise affords richer analysis.

In summary, response styles exhibit differential prevalence across cultures and should be analyzed contextually through both control and embrace rather than simplistically dismissed as invalid nuisance factors.

A Posteriori Procedures to Deal With Bias

After data collection, analysts can evaluate measurement equivalence and probe biases threatening the validity of cross-cultural score comparisons (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

For structure-oriented studies examining relationships among variables, techniques like exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multidimensional scaling assess similarities in conceptual dimensions across groups. This establishes structural equivalence.

For comparing group mean scores, methods like differential item functioning, logistic regression, and standardization identify biases causing specific items or scales to function differently across cultures. Addressing biases promotes equivalence (Fischer & Fontaine, 2011; Sireci, 2011).

Multilevel modeling clarifies connections between culture-level ecological factors, individual psychological outcomes, and variables at other levels simultaneously. This leverages the nested nature of cross-cultural data (Matsumoto et al., 2007).

Supplementing statistical significance with effect sizes evaluates the real-world importance of score differences. Metrics like standardized mean differences and probability of superiority prevent overinterpreting minor absolute variations between groups (Matsumoto et al., 2001).

In summary, a posteriori analytic approach evaluates equivalence at structural and measurement levels and isolates biases interfering with valid score comparisons across cultures. Quantifying practical effects also aids replication and application.

Ethical Issues

Several ethical considerations span the research process when working across cultures. In design, conscious efforts must counteract subtle perpetuation of stereotypes through poorly constructed studies or ignorance of biases.

Extensive collaboration with cultural informants and members can alert researchers to pitfalls (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Recruiting participants ethically becomes more complex globally, as coercion risks increase without shared assumptions about voluntary participation rights.

Securing comprehensible, properly translated informed consent also grows more demanding, though remains an ethical priority even when local guidelines seem more lax. Confidentiality protections likewise prove more intricate across legal systems, requiring extra researcher care.

Studying sensitive topics like gender, sexuality, and human rights brings additional concerns in varying cultural contexts, necessitating localized ethical insight.

Analyzing and reporting data in a culturally conscious manner provides its own challenges, as both subtle biases and consciously overgeneralizing findings can spur harm.

Above all, ethical cross-cultural research requires recognizing communities as equal partners, not mere data sources. From first consultations to disseminating final analyses, maintaining indigenous rights and perspectives proves paramount to ethical engagement.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bond, M. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysteriosum. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 75–100). Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). Cambridge University Press.

Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–74). Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, T., Shavitt, S., & Holbrook, A. (2011). Survey response styles across cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 130–176). Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R., & Dinnel, D. (2001). Do between-culture differences really mean that people are different? A look at some measures of cultural effect size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004007

Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. P. (2023). Culture and psychology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Matsumoto, D., & van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2021). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 97-113). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000318-005

Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (3), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x

Nezlek, J. (2011). Multilevel modeling. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 299–347). Cambridge University Press.

Shweder, R. A. (1999). Why cultural psychology? Ethos, 27 (1), 62–73.

Sireci, S. G. (2011). Evaluating test and survey items for bias across languages and cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 216–243). Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260380

van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Types of cross-cultural studies in cross-cultural psychology. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1017

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What Is Cross-Cultural Psychology? 11 Theories & Examples

Cross cultural

Therefore, we must consider the effect of cultural learning on how we live, our drives, and our goals (Heine, 2010).

As Steven Heine (2010) writes, “on no occasions do we cast aside our cultural dressings to reveal the naked universal human mind.”

Culture should be taken into account when working with clients. According to cross-cultural psychology, it has broad impacts, including on our motivation, self-esteem, social behavior, and communication (Triandis, 2002).

This article explores the background of cross-cultural psychology’s search for possible behavioral and psychological universals.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises will explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

What is cross-cultural psychology, 7 theories and goals of the field, 4 examples of real-life applications, popular topics: 4 interesting research findings, differences between psychology and cultural psychology, a look at 8 programs, degrees, and training options, 4 books to learn more, positivepsychology.com’s related resources, a take-home message.

Cross-cultural psychology is not only fascinating, but insightful, shedding vital light on how and why we behave as we do. This offshoot of psychology involves the scientific study of variations in human behavior under the influence of a “shared way of life of a group of people,” known as cultural context (Berry, 2013).

The American Psychological Association describes cross-cultural psychology as being interested in the “similarities and variances in human behavior across different cultures” to identify “the different psychological constructs and explanatory models used by these cultures” (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2020).

Cross-cultural psychology became a sub-discipline of general psychology in the 1960s to prevent psychology from “becoming an entirely Western project” and “sought to test the universality of psychological laws via cultural comparative studies” (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

This cross-cultural approach to psychology involved recognizing culture as an external variable and exploring its impact on individual behavior. Over the decades that followed, the focus remained on identifying and testing the generalizability of using mainstream psychology approaches (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

It differs from cultural psychology , which aims to organize psychological processes by culture, because rather than looking for differences, cross-cultural psychology is ultimately searching for psychological universals. It seeks psychological patterns that we all share (Ellis & Stam, 2015; Berry, 2013).

Cross-cultural psychology borrows ideas, theories, and approaches from anthropology; it also recognizes the importance of analyzing international differences identified through social-psychological mechanisms.

And it’s important. We often assume that, psychologically speaking, all cultures are the same. Yet this is simply not the case (Berry, 2013).

When anthropologist turned psychologist Joseph Henrich began his research into cultural diversity, he became aware that Western populations were often unusual compared to others.

He also warns us of the risks of psychological bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) populations. We could be ignoring the psychological differences between peoples and wrongly assuming psychological patterns hold cross-culturally (Henrich, 2020).

As Henrich (2020) says, we should celebrate human diversity (psychological or otherwise), while noting that none of the psychological differences identified between cultures suggest one is better than the other or is immutable . Instead, human “psychology has changed over history and will continue to evolve” (Henrich, 2020).

Japanese culture

  • First and most importantly, test the field’s generality by looking at how different cultures respond to standard psychological tests.
  • Next, remain open and observant of other cultures’ psychology, such as recognizing novel aspects of how they behave.
  • Finally, integrate the knowledge (from the first two points) to create nearly universal psychology valid for a greater number of cultures.

Several psychological theories, models, and approaches have emerged from the ongoing research into cross-cultural psychology. They are often not distinct, but complementary, and include:

  • Ecocultural model More recently, having reconfirmed the above goals, Berry proposed the ecocultural model.

It treats culture as a series of variables, existing at both individual and population levels, that interact to influence diversity in individual behavior (Berry, 2004, 2013; Ellis & Stam, 2015).

  • Cultural syndromes Harry Triandis (2002) from the University of Illinois suggests that ecologies shape cultures, and cultures “influence the development of personalities.”

Cultural differences are identified, measured, and described as cultural syndromes (defined by their complexity, tightness, individualism, and collectivism) that can be used to group and organize cultures.

  • Individualism and collectivism Over the years since Triandis’s initial work, individualism and collectivism have dominated research in the field, particularly regarding the differences identified through psychometric testing (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

Individualistic cultures recognize the individual’s needs (over the group’s), including individual goals and rights. By contrast, collectivist cultures are motivated by group goals, where individuals sacrifice their own needs for the group (Triandis, 2002).

  • Natural science approach “Cross-cultural psychology relies on genetics ” and neuroscience to provide a more complete picture of biological building materials that influence the behaviors and psychological features associated with different cultures (Shiraev & Levy, 2020).

Evolutionary theory provides further information regarding the evolutionary factors that influence human experience and behavior, laying the foundation for human culture (Shiraev & Levy, 2020).

3 positive psychology exercises

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Cross-cultural psychology has been applied to (and affected) multiple, diverse areas of human care over the last few decades.

Narrative approach in psychotherapy

“Culture can be thought of as a community of individuals who see the world in a particular manner” (Howard, 1991). As a result, storytelling can be a powerful therapy approach, with narratives capturing the essence of human thought and cultural context. Narrative helps the psychotherapist not only relate to clients, but also understand the development of their identity.

Multicultural counseling and therapy

Cross-cultural psychology is valuable in informing mental healthcare. Indeed, “systems of care must adapt to cultural complexity so that services are acceptable and effective” (Gielen, Draguns, & Fish, 2008).

It is essential to begin with an awareness of biases and privilege, then form a deep understanding of the cultural influences on wellbeing and distress to improve service delivery (Gielen et al., 2008).

Learning and teaching

Combining insights from multiple disciplines, including cross-cultural psychology, has informed educational psychology and led to numerous teaching reforms. A broader cultural view encourages educators and researchers to revisit the biases of educational systems at various levels (Watkins, 2000).

Speech therapy

The development of speech is inevitably influenced by cultural factors. Knowledge gained from cross-cultural psychology provides greater insight into the needs and difficulties faced by children and improves the awareness of potential bias from clinicians and assessors (Carter et al., 2005).

Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurial career intentions

It is broadly accepted that entrepreneurship is crucial to a country’s economic success.

To better understand “the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention,” psychology has used cross-cultural research methods to confirm the importance of cultural context (including cultural identity and cultural variation) on career decisions (Moriano, Gorgievski, Laguna, Stephan, & Zarafshani, 2011).

Moriano et al. (2011) found that sociocultural attitudes were the strongest predictors of individuals wanting to become entrepreneurs. Indeed, an entrepreneur in one culture may be seen as more legitimate than in another, impacting uptake (Moriano et al., 2011).

Differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures

There are some very recognizable differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures (Church, 2000).

In collectivist cultures:

  • People tend to focus on context rather than their internal processes when predicting others’ behavior.
  • Individual behaviors are less consistent across different situations.
  • Behavior is more easily predicted from “norms and roles than from attitudes.”

Cross-cultural psychology has been applied to the field of creativity with some interesting results.

According to Glăveanu (2010), “culture and the individual are both open systems” and the two are mutually dependent and involved in the creative process.

Glăveanu (2010) suggests that the community serves as a social context for producing the artistic outcome and contributes to evaluating creativity.

Cohen, Wu, and Miller (2016) suggest “that a greater attention to both Western and Eastern religions in cross-cultural psychology can be illuminating regarding religion and culture” and insightful regarding how national cultures interact.

Collectivist cultures encourage people to develop interdependent selves, connected in meaningful ways to those around them. By contrast, in individualistic cultures, people think of themselves “as relatively distinct from close others” (Cohen et al., 2016).

Furthermore, some religions are collectivistic, focusing on tradition and community-based religious practice, while others are individualistic, expressing personal faith and one’s relationship with God.

What is cross-cultural psychology? – Audioversity

“Cross-cultural psychology arose as a division of mainstream psychology that deliberately extended the mainstream research framework to test the universality of psychological principles” (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

However, there are several differences between cross-cultural psychology and other branches of psychology. Indeed, much of general psychology focuses on the impact of other people on behavior (such as family, relationships, and friends), yet it ignore culture’s influence. On the other hand, cross-cultural psychology looks at human behavior within the culture, using it as the context for study (Shiraev & Levy, 2020).

It is also important to note that while cross-cultural and cultural psychology are both extensions of general psychology, despite the similar names, they have different focuses (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

Cross-cultural psychology has, since the 1970s, formed part of the established, mainstream, and empirical psychology dedicated to individualistic explanations of psychological phenomena. Culture becomes a way of testing the universality of psychological processes (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

Cultural psychology is interested in determining how local cultures (including their social practices) influence and shape how our psychological processes develop (Ellis & Stam, 2015).

Cross-cultural psychology degree

Several organizations offer training influenced by cross-cultural psychology theory and research findings, including:

  • Cross-cultural training Global Integration provides tailored training opportunities that include understanding the impact of cultural styles, recognizing the benefits of cultural diversity, and seeing the value in more inclusive virtual meetings.
  • Country-specific cross-culture training Living Institute offers training to help collaborate across cultures and seek value in diversity.
  • Building cross-cultural skills for global working Culturewise specializes in cross-cultural and cultural awareness training including, leadership, management, and communication skills.

While few graduate programs focus entirely on cross-cultural psychology, the following master’s degrees offer valuable insights into areas related to the field.

  • Social and cultural psychology The London School of Economics and Political Science , UK, offers a master’s degree that explores how culture and society shape how we think, behave, and relate to one another.
  • Culture, adaptive leadership, & transcultural competence The University of Amsterdam , Netherlands, has a master’s program that includes cross-cultural psychology. Specifically, it covers how culture shapes psychological functioning and how to design programs and culturally sensitive interventions.
  • Mental health: Cultural psychology and psychiatry Queen Mary University , London, UK, offers a master’s degree that explores sociocultural factors in mental health and mental illness.
  • Diversity and inclusion leadership Tufts University , Medford, USA, offers a master’s degree in becoming a strong, informed, and skilled leader versed in diversity and inclusion.
  • Criminal justice – Diversity, inclusion and belonging Saint Joseph’s University , Philadelphia, USA, offers a master’s degree in criminal justice with a concentration in diversity, inclusion, and belonging.

The following four books are some of our favorites on the subject of cross-cultural psychology. Combined, they provide a broad and deep insight into the research, theories, and application.

1. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications – John Berry, Ype Poortinga, Seger Breugelmans, Athanasios Chasiotis, and David Sam

Cross-Cultural Psychology

This new edition of one of the leading textbooks on cross-cultural psychology targets students new to the field and more experienced practitioners wishing to update their skills.

Written by a team of distinguished international authors, the book’s 18 chapters present an exhaustive discussion of cross-cultural psychology approaches and their application.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and Contemporary Applications – Eric Shiraev and David Levy

cross cultural psychology assignment

This new seventh edition of this popular text on cross-cultural psychology is conversational in style and uses a critical thinking framework to develop analytical skills.

The book contains a wealth of recent references to keep you updated about the field. Along with covering the theory, it explores how to apply the learnings in various multicultural contexts including teaching, healthcare, social work, and counseling.

3. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Contemporary Themes and Perspectives – Kenneth Keith

Contemporary Themes

Kenneth Keith does an excellent job at placing key areas of psychology within a cultural perspective. An introductory section is followed by the research and theories of cross-cultural psychology, and then the book moves into clinical and social principles and applications.

This second edition is rich in research and examples and will provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the discipline and its integration with the rest of psychology.

4. The Cross-Cultural Coaching Kaleidoscope  – Jennifer Plaister-Ten

Coaching Kaleidoscope

In Jennifer Plaister-Ten’s excellent book, we learn about the impact of cross-cultural psychology research findings on coaching and how to work and practice in a global market.

This is an incredibly valuable text for coaches working in a multicultural environment and raising awareness of cultural influences for their clients’ benefit.

Our cultural context influences who we are, including our personality , strengths, values, and behavior.

We have several resources to get to know yourself better.

  • Exploring Character Strengths These 10 questions are valuable ways of recognizing and exploring your character strengths.
  • Core Beliefs CBT Formulation We typically interpret another’s actions based on our personal core beliefs. Challenging those beliefs with this CBT formulation can help you manage your unhelpful responses to the perceived negative behavior of others.
  • Spotting Good Traits We often miss opportunities to recognize or praise others for the many good traits that they possess. Understanding them can help our interactions with other people.
  • Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale Emotions provide feedback on whether we are meeting our personal needs. This assessment allows clients to better satisfy their personal needs by building their self-awareness.
  • How To Use Your Strengths Strengths can be under- or overused. In this exercise , we explore each strength and consider various ways to apply them in daily life.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others enhance their wellbeing, this signature collection contains 17 validated positive psychology tools for practitioners. Use them to help others flourish and thrive.

cross cultural psychology assignment

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Psychological phenomena vary significantly across cultural contexts and have different degrees of universality. And yet, a great deal of psychological research has been performed in Western countries – a high percentage in the United States – impacting and biasing our understanding of human psychology (Heine, 2010).

Cross-cultural psychology is particularly valuable, as it helps address this narrow view by looking for what psychological phenomena are universal. It “examines psychological diversity and the underlying reasons for such diversity” (Shiraev & Levy, 2020).

Findings from research studies provide insight into cultural norms and behavior, including how social and cultural forces impact our activities (Shiraev & Levy, 2020).

Cross-cultural psychology aims to do more than merely identify differences between cultural groups; it seeks to uncover what is common or shared.

Explore some of the mental health theories , research, and applications involved in cross-cultural psychology. While it is a complex and vast subject, it has far-reaching value in our direct dealings with individuals from different cultures and can be used to promote awareness in our clients that may benefit their multicultural relationships.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

  • APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2020). Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/cross-cultural-psychology
  • Berry, J. W. (2004). An ecocultural perspective on the development of competence. In R. J. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence (pp. 3–22). American Psychological Association.
  • Berry, J. (2013). Achieving a global psychology. Canadian Psychology , 54 , 55–61.
  • Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011).  Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications  (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Berry, J., Poortinga, Y. H., Marshall, S. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Carter, J. A., Lees, J. A., Murira, G. M., Gona, J., Neville, B. G. R., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2005). Issues in the development of cross-cultural assessments of speech and language for children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 40 (4), 385–401.
  • Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality ,  69 , 651–703.
  • Cohen, A. B., Wu, M. S., & Miller, J. (2016). Religion and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 47 (9), 1236–1249.
  • Ellis, B. D., & Stam, H. J. (2015). Crisis? What crisis? Cross-cultural psychology’s appropriation of cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology , 21 (3), 293–317.
  • Gielen, U. P., Draguns, J. G., & Fish, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Counseling and psychotherapy: Investigating practice from scientific, historical, and cultural perspectives. Principles of multicultural counseling and therapy . Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology , 16 (2), 147–163.
  • Heine, S. J. (2010). Cultural psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1423–1464). John Wiley & Sons.
  • Henrich, J. P. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous . Penguin Books.
  • Howard, G. S. (1991). Culture tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychotherapy. American Psychologist , 46 (3), 187–197.
  • Keith, K. D. (Ed.). (2019).  Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives  (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2011). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development , 39 (2), 162–185.
  • Plaister-Ten, J. (2016).  The cross-cultural coaching kaleidoscope.  Routledge.
  • Shiraev, E., & Levy, D. A. (2020). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications (7th ed.). Routledge.
  • Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 133–160.
  • Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School Leadership & Management , 20 (2), 161–173.
  • Wei, Y., Spencer-Rodgers, J., Anderson, E., & Peng, K. (2020). The effects of a cross-cultural psychology course on perceived intercultural competence. Teaching of Psychology .

' src=

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

AR Nathan

A very useful article

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of needs

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Classical Conditioning Phobias

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

Read other articles by their category

  • Body & Brain (47)
  • Coaching & Application (56)
  • Compassion (26)
  • Counseling (51)
  • Emotional Intelligence (24)
  • Gratitude (18)
  • Grief & Bereavement (21)
  • Happiness & SWB (40)
  • Meaning & Values (26)
  • Meditation (20)
  • Mindfulness (45)
  • Motivation & Goals (45)
  • Optimism & Mindset (34)
  • Positive CBT (26)
  • Positive Communication (20)
  • Positive Education (47)
  • Positive Emotions (31)
  • Positive Leadership (16)
  • Positive Psychology (33)
  • Positive Workplace (35)
  • Productivity (16)
  • Relationships (48)
  • Resilience & Coping (34)
  • Self Awareness (20)
  • Self Esteem (37)
  • Strengths & Virtues (30)
  • Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
  • Theory & Books (46)
  • Therapy Exercises (37)
  • Types of Therapy (64)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

Book cover

Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology pp 288–294 Cite as

Cross-Cultural Psychology

  • Erika Niwa 2 &
  • Catherine S Tamis-LeMonda 3  
  • Reference work entry
  • First Online: 01 January 2015

Diversity has become a buzzword in the disciplines of education and psychology. References to culture, ethnicity and race pervade empirical and theoretical writings of the past three decades. Consequently, the field of psychology has shifted from an emphasis on universal developmental processes to an emphasis on developmental processes in context. Although early theorists such as Vygotsky and Erikson recognized the role of culture in human learning and development, the mid 1960s witnessed the beginning of the modern movement in cross-cultural psychology, which culminated in the creation of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) in 1972. To illustrate the growth in cultural studies, a search of PsychInfo from 1960 to 1970 yields 2,854 publications with the term “culture” in the abstract. From 1970 to 1990, that number more than tripled to 9,035, and between 1990 and the present, over 31,000 publications contain “culture” in the abstract. Nonetheless, most...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Suggested Reading

Berry, J. W., Dasen, P. R., & Saraswathi, T. S. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of cross cultural psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Google Scholar  

Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2002). Investigating the coordinated functioning of multifaceted cultural practices in human development. Human Development, 45 , 211–225.

Article   Google Scholar  

Suzuki, L. A., Meller, P. J., & Ponterotto, J. G. (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological and educational applications . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Steinhardt School of Education, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, U.S.A.

Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Catherine S Tamis-LeMonda

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Psychology, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, U.S.A.

Caroline S. Clauss-Ehlers Ph.D. ( Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology ) ( Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Niwa, E., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S. (2010). Cross-Cultural Psychology. In: Clauss-Ehlers, C.S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71799-9_103

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71799-9_103

Published : 11 March 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-71798-2

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-71799-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Module Catalogue

Ps367-15 psychology across cultures.

Download as PDF

  • Description
  • Availability

Introductory description

In a fast-changing world, “Psychology Across Cultures” explores how and why people’s basic psychological processes, values and behaviour differ across cultures and what this implies for psychological theory and application.

Module web page

Module aims

The module highlights the importance of a cross-cultural perspective for understanding and explaining different contemporary issues such as migration, ethnic conflicts, globalisation and cultural change. In academic terms, the module aims to develop the students’ understanding of the fundamental concepts and theoretical perspectives pertinent to the study of culture and human behaviour

Outline syllabus

This is an indicative module outline only to give an indication of the sort of topics that may be covered. Actual sessions held may differ.

  • Introduction to the module; understanding culture
  • The role of values and beliefs in cultural variation
  • Culture and the self
  • Culture and emotion
  • Personality across cultures
  • Culture and health
  • Culture in the workplace
  • Relationship variations across cultures 1: Forming relationships
  • Relationship variations across cultures 2: Family and children
  • Moving cultures
  • Revision lecture 1
  • Revision lecture 2

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

  • demonstrate a critical knowledge of how major psychological findings vary across cultures;
  • demonstrate a critical understanding of the major concepts and theoretical perspectives in cross-cultural psychology;
  • evaluate the relative contributions of values, beliefs and ecology to the understanding of cultural variations in psychology;
  • demonstrate a critical awareness of the key methods used in cross-cultural psychology
  • understand and critically evaluate their own cultural values, norms and assumptions.

Indicative reading list

Smith, P., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V., & Bond, M.H. (2013). Understanding Social Psychology Across Cultures: Engaging with Others in a Changing World. 2nd edition. London: Sage

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

View reading list on Talis Aspire

Subject specific skills

  • critical understanding of the major concepts and theoretical perspectives in cross-cultural psychology
  • knowledge of major psychological findings and variance of these across cultures
  • critical evaluation of personal cultural values, norms and assumptions.

Transferable skills

  • effective communication skills to develop a cogent argument supported by relevant evidence and being sensitive to the needs and expectations of an audience;
  • familiarity with collecting and organising stored information found in library book and journal collections, and online, critically evaluating primary and secondary sources;
  • effective personal planning skills

Private study description

116 hours guided student study & assessment preparation

No further costs have been identified for this module.

You do not need to pass all assessment components to pass the module.

Assessment group D1

Feedback on assessment.

Detailed academic guidance form for assessed work; Academic and peer feedback forms for interview; exam results online.¿¿¿¿¿

Past exam papers for PS367

This module is Optional for:

  • Year 1 of TPSS-C8P9 Postgraduate Taught Psychological Research
  • Year 3 of UPSA-C800 Undergraduate Psychology
  • Year 4 of UPSA-C801 Undergraduate Psychology (with Intercalated year)
  • Year 3 of UPSA-C804 Undergraduate Psychology with Education Studies

This module is Option list A for:

This module is Option list B for:

  • Year 3 of UPHA-VL78 BA in Philosophy with Psychology
  • Year 4 of UPHA-VL79 BA in Philosophy with Psychology (with Intercalated year)

This module is Option list C for:

  • Year 3 of UPSA-C802 Undergraduate Psychology with Linguistics

Cross-cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural psychology is the study of how cultural variables influence human behavior, cognition, and emotion. It is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes under various cultural contexts, including their variety and invariance.

It investigates how culture shapes and influences diverse psychological processes, including common values, beliefs, customs, norms, and practices. It tries to enhance and develop psychology by expanding research approaches to recognize cultural variation in behavior, language, and meaning. This field is critical for understanding how people from various cultural origins think, feel, and behave in different ways.

Because there are concerns that theories dealing with central themes such as affect, cognition, self-concept, and issues such as psychopathology, anxiety, and depression may lack external validity when “exported” to other cultural contexts, cross-cultural psychology re-examines them using methodologies designed to account for cultural variance.

Here are some key aspects of cross-cultural psychology:

  • Cultural Variation: It investigates the similarities and differences in psychological processes across cultures. It acknowledges the lack of a universal “one-size-fits-all” model for understanding human behavior and cognition.
  • Cultural Relativity: This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of understanding psychological processes within the cultural context in which they occur. What is deemed normal or abnormal, desirable or unpleasant, and moral or immoral varies greatly amongst cultures.
  • Cultural Universals: While cultural variations are a primary focus of cross-cultural psychology, researchers also seek cultural universals, or features of human psychology that are consistent across cultures. These are the characteristics, actions, or cognitive processes that seem to be shared by all human societies.
  • Acculturation: Acculturation is the process of adapting to a new culture when an individual or group migrates or is exposed to a different cultural environment. Cross-cultural psychology explores how individuals navigate this process, and how it affects their mental health, identity, and well-being.
  • Cultural Psychology: Cultural psychology is closely related to cross-cultural psychology, but it focuses on how culture impacts people’s minds and behaviors within a specific cultural setting. It frequently entails doing study inside a specific cultural group to investigate the unique ways in which culture influences psychological processes.

Practical Applications

Cross-cultural psychology is useful in fields such as education, business, healthcare, and international relations. Understanding how culture influences behavior is critical for facilitating effective communication, eliminating misunderstandings, and encouraging collaboration among various cultural groups.

Some opponents have pointed out methodological issues in cross-cultural psychological research, claiming that major errors in the theoretical and methodological foundations used inhibit, rather than help, the scientific search for universal principles in psychology. Cross-cultural psychologists are focusing on how differences (variance) occur rather than looking for universals in the manner of physics or chemistry.

Overall, cross-cultural psychology contributes significantly to our knowledge of human behavior and cognition by emphasizing the impact of culture on these processes. It is especially pertinent in our increasingly globalized society, where individuals from all walks of life communicate and collaborate more than ever before.

About Cognitive Bias

Group polarization, dogs exhibit behavior that is similar to the people with adhd, extensive screen time is related to developmental delays in children, antibody treatment reduces inflammation in the lungs and nervous system in macaques infected with sars-cov-2, audi announces its 2026 formula 1 entry as the sport welcomes the volkswagen brand, annual report 2009-2010 of karur vysya bank, ion thruster – a form of electric propulsion, atlassian launches a whole new trello, sample application for alternate staff employee, latest post, hydrogen leak testing, electrolysis of water, the eyes have it in combating brain infections, using silkworm cocoons and mussels to prevent organ hemorrhage, coastal hydrogeology, fault zone hydrogeology.

  • Study Guides
  • Homework Questions

PSY 213 Assignment 1

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Front Psychol

Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Ji hoon park.

1 Department of Psychology, Pace University, New York, NY, United States

2 Developmental and Educational Research Center for Children's Creativity, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Heavon Allen

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Enhancing creativity and critical thinking have garnered the attention of educators and researchers for decades. They have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century. A total of 103 United States students (53 female, 24 male, two non-binary, and 24 non-reporting) and 166 Chinese students (128 female, 30 male, one non-binary, and seven non-reporting) completed an online survey. The survey includes the STEAM-related creative problem solving, Sternberg scientific reasoning tasks, psychological critical thinking (PCT) exam, California critical thinking (CCT) skills test, and college experience survey, as well as a demographic questionnaire. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yields a two-factor model for all creativity and critical thinking measurements. Yet, the two latent factors are strongly associated with each other ( r =0.84). Moreover, Chinese students outperform American students in measures of critical thinking, whereas Americans outperform Chinese students in measures of creativity. Lastly, the results also demonstrate that having some college research experience (such as taking research method courses) could positively influence both United States and Chinese students’ creativity and critical thinking skills. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

Creativity and critical thinking have been recognized as essential skills in the 21st century ( National Education Association, 2012 ). Many researchers and educators have focused on these two skills, including acquisition, enhancement, and performance. In addition, numerous studies have been devoted to understanding the conceptual complexities involved in creativity and critical thinking. Although similar to each other, creativity and critical thinking are distinctive by definition, each with a different emphasis.

The concept of creativity has evolved over the years. It was almost exclusively conceptualized as divergent thinking when Guilford (1956 , 1986) proposed divergent thinking as a part of intelligence. Earlier measures of creativity took the approach of divergent thinking, measuring creative potential ( Wallach and Kogan, 1965 ; Torrance, 1966 , 1988 ; Runco and Albert, 1986 ; Kim, 2005 ). In 1990s, many creativity scholars challenged the validity of tests of divergent thinking, and suggested that divergent thinking only captures the trivial sense of creativity, and proposed to use the product-oriented method to measure creativity ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ). A system model of creativity, which recognizes the important roles individual, field, and domain have played, was used as a framework to conceptualize creativity. A widely accepted definition for creativity is a person’s ability to generate an idea or product that is deemed as both novel and appropriate by experts in a field of human activities ( Scott and Bruce, 1994 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Hunter et al., 2007 ). Corazza and Lubart (2021) recently proposed a dynamic definition of creativity, in which creativity is defined as a context-embedded phenomenon that is tightly related to the cultural and social environment. Based on this new definition, measures of creativity should be context-specific and culturally relevant, especially when it is examined cross-culturally.

Similarly, the conceptualization of critical thinking has also evolved over the years. Earlier definitions emphasized the broad multidimensional aspects of critical thinking, including at least three aspects: attitude, knowledge, and skills ( Glaser, 1941 ). The definition has been evolved to include specific components for each aspect ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ). For example, critical thinking is recognized as the ability to use cognitive skills or strategies to increase the probability of a desirable outcome ( Halpern, 1999 ). More specifically, cognitive skills such as evaluation, problem-solving, reflective thinking, logical reasoning, and probability thinking are recognized as parts of critical thinking skills in research and assessments ( Ennis, 1987 , Scriven and Paul, 1987 , Halpern, 1999 ). Moving into the 21st century, metacognition and self-regulatory skills have also become essential components for critical thinking in addition to the cognitive skills recognized by earlier scholars ( Korn, 2014 , Paul and Elder, 2019 ).

Similar to the concept of creativity, critical thinking is also viewed as multidimensional and domain specific ( Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). For example, critical thinking in psychology, also referred to as psychological critical thinking (PCT), is defined as one’s ability to evaluate claims in a way that explicitly incorporates basic principles of psychological science ( Lawson, 1999 ). As one of the important hub sciences, psychology is often regarded as a foundational course for scientific training in American higher education ( Boyack et al., 2005 ). In psychological discourse, critical thinking is often defined in tandem with scientific thinking, which places significance on hypothesis-testing and problem-solving in order to reduce bias and erroneous beliefs ( Halpern, 1984 ; American Psychological Association, 2016 ; Lamont, 2020 ; Sternberg and Halpern, 2020 ). Based on this definition, measures of critical thinking should assess cognitive skills (i.e., evaluation, logical reasoning) and ability to utilize scientific methods for problem-solving.

In addition to the evolution of the definitions of critical thinking and creativity, research into these two concepts has led to the development of various measurements. For both concepts, there have been numerous measurements that have been studied, utilized, and improved.

The complexities associated with creativity (i.e., context-relevant and domain-specificity) pose a major issue for its measurement. Many different types of creativity measures have been developed in the past. Measures using a divergent thinking approach, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ( Torrance, 1974 ) and Alternate Uses Test ( Guilford et al., 1960 ), a product-oriented approach, a third person nomination approach, as well as a self-report approach measuring personality ( Gough, 1979 ), creative behavior ( Hocevar and Michael, 1979 ; Rodriguez-Boerwinkle et al., 2021 ), and creative achievement ( Carson et al., 2005 ; Diedrich et al., 2018 ).

Both the divergent thinking and the product-oriented approaches have been widely used in the creativity literature to objectively measure creativity. The tasks of both approaches are generally heuristic, meaning that no correct answer is expected and the process does not need to be rational. When scoring divergent thinking, the number of responses (i.e., fluency) and the rareness of the response (i.e., originality) were used to represent creativity. When scoring products using the product-orientated approach, a group of experts provides their subjective ratings on various dimensions such as originality, appropriateness, and aesthetically appealing to these products using their subjective criteria. When there is a consensus among the experts, average ratings of these expert scores are used to represent the creativity of the products. This approach is also named as Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982 , 1996 ). Some scholars viewed the CAT approach as focusing on the convergent aspect of creativity ( Lubart et al., 2013 ). Recognizing the importance of divergent and convergent thinking in conceptualizing creativity, Lubart et al. (2013) have suggested including divergent thinking and product-oriented approach (i.e., CAT) to objective measures of creativity ( Barbot et al., 2011 ).

Similar to measures of creativity, measurements of critical thinking are also multilevel and multi-approach. In an article reviewing the construction of critical thinking in psychological studies, Lamont (2020) argues that critical thinking became a scientific object when psychologists attempted to measure it. Different from measures of creativity, where the tasks are heuristic in nature, measures of critical thinking require participants to engage in logical thinking. Therefore, the nature of critical thinking tasks is more algorithmic.

The interest in the study of critical thinking is evident in the increased efforts in the past decades to measure such a complex, multidimensional skill. Watson-Glaser Tests for Critical Thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1938 ) is widely recognized as the first official measure of critical thinking. Since then, numerous measurements of critical thinking have been developed to evaluate both overall and domain-specific critical thinking, such as the PCT Exam ( Lawson, 1999 ; See Mueller et al., 2020 for list of assessments). A few of the most commonly used contemporary measures of critical thinking include the Watson-Glaser Test for Critical Thinking Appraisals ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ), Cornell Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis et al., 1985 ), and California Critical Thinking (CCT) Skills Test ( Facione and Facione, 1994 ). As the best established and widely used standardized critical thinking measures, these tests have been validated in various studies and have been used as a criterion for meta-analyses ( Niu et al., 2013 ; Ross et al., 2013 ).

There have also been concerns regarding the usage of these standardized measures of critical thinking on its own due to its emphasis on measuring general cognitive abilities of participants, while negating the domain-specific aspect of critical thinking ( Lamont, 2020 ). The issues associated with standardized measures are not unique to standardized critical thinking measures, as same types of criticisms have been raised for standardized college admissions measures such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). To develop an assessment that encompasses a broader range of student abilities that is more aligned to scientific disciplines, Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) developed a scientific inquiry and reasoning measure. This measure is aimed to assess participants’ ability to utilize scientific methods and to think scientifically in order to investigate a topic or solve a problem ( Sternberg and Sternberg, 2017 ). The strength of this measure is that it assesses students’ abilities (i.e., ability to think critically) that are domain-specific and relevant to the sciences. Considering the multidimensional aspect of critical thinking, a combination of a standardized critical thinking measure, an assessment measuring cognitive abilities involved in critical thinking; and a measure that assesses domain-specific critical thinking, would provide a comprehensive evaluation of critical thinking.

The Relationship Between Creativity and Critical Thinking

Most of the studies thus far referenced have investigated creativity and critical thinking separately; however, the discussion on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking spans decades of research ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ; Glassner and Schwartz, 2007 ; Wechsler et al., 2018 ; Akpur, 2020 ). Some earlier studies on the relationship between divergent thinking and critical thinking have observed a moderate correlation ( r =0.23, p <0.05) between the two ( Gibson et al., 1968 ). Using measures of creative personality, Gadzella and Penland (1995) also found a moderate correlation ( r =0.36, p <0.05) between creative personality and critical thinking.

Recent studies have further supported the positive correlation between critical thinking and creativity. For example, using the creative thinking disposition scale to measure creativity, Akpur (2020) found a moderate correlation between the two among college students ( r =0.27, p <0.05). Similarly, using the critical thinking disposition scale to measure critical thinking and scientific creativity scale and creative self-efficacy scale to measure creativity, Qiang et al. (2020) studied the relationship between critical thinking and creativity to a large sample of high school students ( n =1,153). They found that the relationship between the two varied depending on the type of measurement of creativity. More specifically, the correlation between critical thinking disposition and creative self-efficacy was r =0.045 ( p <0.001), whereas the correlation between critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity was r =0.15 ( p <0.01).

Recognizing the moderate relationship between the two, researchers have also aimed to study the independence of creativity and critical thinking. Some studies have found evidence that these constructs are relatively autonomous. The results of Wechsler et al. (2018) study, which aimed to investigate whether creativity and critical thinking are independent or complementary processes, found a relative autonomy of creativity and critical thinking and found that the variables were only moderately correlated. The researchers in this study suggest that a model that differentiated the two latent variables associated with creativity and critical thinking dimensions was the most appropriate method of analysis ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ). Evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are fairly independent processes was also found in study of Ling and Loh (2020) . The results of their research, which examined the relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition, revealed that creativity is a weak predictor of pattern recognition. In contrast, critical thinking is a good predictor ( Ling and Loh, 2020 ).

It is worth noting that a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in these studies’ results is the variance in the definition and the measures used to evaluate creativity and critical thinking. Based on the current literature on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, we believe that more investigation was needed to further clarify the relationship between creativity and critical thinking which became a catalyst for the current study.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Creativity and Critical Thinking Performance

Results from various cross-cultural studies suggest that there are differences in creativity and critical thinking skills among cultures. A common belief is that individuals from Western cultures are believed to be more critical and creative compared to non-Westerners, whereas individuals from non-Western cultures are believed to be better at critical thinking related tasks compared to Westerners ( Ng, 2001 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Lee et al., 2015 ). For example, Wong and Niu (2013) found a persistent cultural stereotype regarding creativity and critical thinking skills that exist cross-culturally. In their study, both Chinese and Americans believed that Chinese perform better in deductive reasoning (a skill comparable to critical thinking) and that Americans perform better on creativity. This stereotype belief was found to be incredibly persistent as participants did not change their opinions even when presented with data that contradicted their beliefs.

Interestingly, research does suggest that such a stereotype might be based on scientific evidence ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ). In the same study, it was revealed that Chinese did in fact perform better than Americans in deductive reasoning, and Americans performed better in creativity tests ( Wong and Niu, 2013 ). Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) found that compared to American students, Korean students believed that they are more prone to use receptive learning abilities (remembering and reproducing what is taught) instead of critical and creative learning abilities.

Cultural Influence on Critical Thinking

Other studies investigating the cultural influence on critical thinking have had more nuanced findings. Manalo et al. (2013) study of university students from New Zealand and Japan found that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, and self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use. Still, the differences in those factors do not necessarily equate to differences in critical thinking. Their results found that students from Western and Asian cultural environments did not have significant differences in their reported use of critical thinking. The researchers in this study suggest that perhaps the skills and values nurtured in the educational environment have a more significant influence on students’ use of critical thinking ( Manalo et al., 2013 ).

Another study found that New Zealand European students performed better on objective measures of critical thinking than Chinese students. Still, such differences could be explained by the student’s English proficiency and not dialectical thinking style. It was also revealed in this study that Chinese students tended to rely more on dialectical thinking to solve critical thinking problems compared to the New Zealand European students ( Lun et al., 2010 ). Other research on the cultural differences in thinking styles revealed that Westerners are more likely to use formal logical rules in reasoning. In contrast, Asians are more likely to use intuitive experience-based sense when solving critical thinking problems ( Nisbett et al., 2001 ).

These studies suggest that culture can be used as a broad taxonomy to explain differences in critical thinking use. Still, one must consider the educational environment and thinking styles when studying the nature of the observed discrepancies. For instance, cultural differences in thinking style, in particular, might explain why Westerners perform better on some critical thinking measures, whereas Easterners perform better on others.

Cultural Influence on Creative Performance

Historically, creativity studies have suggested that individuals from non-Western cultures are not as creative as Westerners ( Torrance, 1974 ; Jellen and Urban, 1989 ; Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). For example, in one study, Americans generated more aesthetically pleasing artworks (as judged by both American and Chinese judges) than Chinese ( Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ). However, recent creativity research has suggested that cross-cultural differences are primarily attributable to the definition of creativity rather than the level of creativity between cultures. As aforementioned, creativity is defined as an idea or product that is both novel and appropriate. Many cross-cultural studies have found that Westerners have a preference and perform better in the novelty aspect, and Easterners have a preference and perform better in the appropriateness aspect. In cross-cultural studies, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) found that Israelis tend to generate more original ideas than their Singaporean counterparts. In contrast, Singaporeans tend to produce more appropriate ideas. Bechtoldt et al. (2012) found in their study that Koreans generated more useful ideas, whereas Dutch students developed more original ideas. Liou and Lan (2018) found Taiwanese tend to create and select more useful ideas, whereas Americans tend to generate and choose more novel ideas. The differences in creativity preference and performance found in these studies suggest that cultural influence is a prominent factor in creativity.

In summary, cross-cultural studies have supported the notion that culture influences both creativity and critical thinking. This cultural influence seems relatively unambiguous in creativity as it has been found in multiple studies that cultural background can explain differences in performance and preference to the dual features of creativity. Critical thinking has also been influenced by culture, albeit in an opaquer nature in comparison to creativity. Critical thinking is ubiquitous in all cultures, but the conception of critical thinking and the methods used to think critically (i.e., thinking styles) are influenced by cultural factors.

Influence of College Experience on Creativity and Critical Thinking

Given its significance as a core academic ability, the hypothesis of many colleges and universities emphasize that students will gain critical thinking skills as the result of their education. Fortunately, studies have shown that these efforts have had some promising outcomes. Around 92% of students in multi-institution research reported gains in critical thinking. Only 8.9% of students believed that their critical thinking had not changed or had grown weaker ( Tsui, 1998 ). A more recent meta-analysis by Huber and Kuncel (2016) found that students make substantial gains in critical thinking during college. In addition, the efforts to enhance necessary thinking skills have led to the development of various skill-specific courses. Mill et al. (1994) found that among three groups of undergraduate students, a group that received tutorial sessions and took research methodology and statistics performed significantly better on scientific reasoning and critical thinking abilities tests than control groups. Penningroth et al. (2007) found that students who took a class in which they were required to engage in active learning and critical evaluation of claims by applying scientific concepts, had greater improvement in psychological critical thinking than students in the comparison groups. There have also been studies in which students’ scientific inquiry and critical thinking skills have improved by taking a course designed with specific science thinking and reasoning modules ( Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ).

Using a Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE), Lopatto (2004 , 2008) found that research experience can help students gain various learning skills such as ability to integrate theory and practice, ability to analyze data, skill in the interpretation of results, and understanding how scientists work on problem. All of these learning skills correspond to at least one of the dimensions mentioned earlier in the definition of critical thinking (i.e., evaluation, analytical thinking, and problem solving through). Thus, results of SURE provide evidence that critical thinking can be enhanced through research experience ( Lopatto, 2004 , 2008 ).

In comparison to critical thinking, only a few studies have examined the interaction between creativity and college experience. Previous research on STEM provides some evidence to suggest that STEM education can promote the learner’s creativity ( Land, 2013 , Guo and Woulfin, 2016 , Kuo et al., 2018 ). Notably, study of Kuo et al. (2018) suggest that project-based learning in STEM has the merits of improving one’s creativity. They found that the STEM Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning (IPBL) course is a practical approach to improve college student’s creativity ( Kuo et al., 2018 ). College research experience in particular, has been reported as important or very important by faculty and students for learning how to approach problems creatively ( Zydney et al., 2002 ).

Although specific college courses aimed to enhance creativity have been scarce, some training programs have been developed specifically to improve creativity. Scott et al. (2004) conducted a quantitative review of various creativity training and found that divergent thinking, creative problem solving, and creativity performance can be enhanced through skill-specific training programs. Embodied creativity training programs, consisting of creativity fitness exercises and intensive workshops, have also been effective in enhancing participants’ creative production and improving their creative self-efficacy ( Byrge and Tang, 2015 ).

Both critical thinking and creativity were also found to be important in students’ learning. Using a longitudinal design for one semester to 52 graduate students in biology, Siburian et al. (2019) studied how critical thinking and creative thinking contribute to improving cognitive learning skills. They found that both critical and creative thinking significantly contributes to enhancing cognitive learning skills ( R 2 =0.728). They each contribute separately to the development of cognitive learning skills ( b was 0.123 between critical thinking and cognitive learning and 0.765 between creative thinking and cognitive learning). The results from research on creativity and critical thinking indicate that training and experiences of students in college can enhance both of these skills.

Current Study

Previous literature on creativity and critical thinking suggests that there is a positive correlation between these two skills. Moreover, cultural background influences creativity and critical thinking conception and performance. However, our literature review suggests that there are only a few studies that have investigated creativity and critical thinking simultaneously to examine whether cultural background is a significant influence in performance. In addition, most of the past research on creativity and critical thinking have relied on dispositions or self-reports to measure the two skills and the investigation on the actual performance have been scarce. Lastly, past studies suggest that the acquisition and enhancement of these skills are influenced by various factors. Notably, college experience and skill-specific training have been found to improve both creativity and critical thinking. However, it is not yet clear how college experience aids in fostering creativity and critical thinking and which elements of college education are beneficial for enhancing these two skills. The cultural influence on creativity and critical thinking performance also needs further investigation.

The current study aimed to answer two questions related to this line of thought. How does culture influence creativity and critical thinking performance? How does college experience affect creativity and critical thinking? Based on past findings, we developed three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that there is a positive association between critical thinking and creativity. Second, we suggest that college students from different countries have different levels of creativity and critical thinking. More specifically, we predicted that United States students would perform better than Chinese students on both creativity and critical thinking. Last, we hypothesized that having college research experience (through courses or research labs) will enhance creativity and critical thinking.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The study was examined by the Internal Review Board by the host university in the United States and obtained an agreement from a partner university in China to meet the ethical standard of both countries.

Participants include 103 university students from the United States and 166 university students from Mainland China. Among all participants, 181 were female (67.3%), 54 were male (20.1%), non-binary or gender fluid ( n =3, 1.1%), and some did not report their gender ( n =31, 11.5%). The majority of participants majored in social sciences ( n =197, 73.2%). Other disciplines include business and management ( n =38, 14.1%), engineering and IT ( n =20, 7.4%), and sciences ( n =14, 5.2%). A Chi-square analysis was performed to see if the background in major was different between the American and Chinese samples. The results showed that the two samples are comparable in college majors, X 2 (3, 265) =5.50, p =0.138.

The American participants were recruited through campus recruitment flyers and a commercial website called Prolific (online survey distribution website). Ethnicities of the American participants were White ( n =44, 42.7%), Asian ( n =13, 12.6%), Black or African American ( n =11, 10.7%), Hispanic or Latinos ( n =5, 4.9%), and some did not report their ethnicity ( n =30, 29.1%). The Chinese participants were recruited through online recruitment flyers. All Chinese students were of Han ethnicity.

After reviewing and signing an online consent form, both samples completed a Qualtrics survey containing creativity and critical thinking measures.

Measurements

Steam related creative problem solving.

This is a self-designed measurement, examining participant’s divergent and convergent creative thinking in solving STEAM-related real-life problems. It includes three vignettes, each depicting an issue that needs to be resolved. Participants were given a choice to pick two vignettes to which they would like to provide possible solutions for. Participants were asked to provide their answers in two parts. In the first part, participants were asked to provide as many solutions as they can think of for the problem depicted (divergent). In the second part, participants were asked to choose one of the solutions they gave in the first part that they believe is the most creative and elaborate on how they would carry out the solution (convergent).

The responses for the first part of the problem (i.e., divergent) were scored based on fluency (number of solutions given). Each participant received a score on fluency by averaging the number of solutions given across three tasks. In order to score the originality of the second part of the solution (i.e., convergent), we invited four graduate students who studied creativity for at least 1year as expert judges to independently rate the originality of all solutions. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for all three vignette solutions (0.809, 0.906, and 0.703). We then averaged the originality scores provided by the four experts to represent the originality of each solution. We then averaged the top three solutions as rated by the experts to represent the student’s performance on originality. In the end, each student received two scores on this task: fluency and originality.

Psychological Critical Thinking Exam

We adopted an updated PCT Exam developed by Lawson et al. (2015) , which made improvements to the original measure ( Lawson, 1999 ). We used PCT to measure the participants’ domain-specific critical thinking: critical thinking involved in the sciences. The initial assessment aimed to examine the critical thinking of psychology majors; however, the updated measure was developed so that it can be used to examine students’ critical thinking in a variety of majors. The split-half reliability of the revised measurement was 0.88, and test-retest reliability was 0.90 ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). Participants were asked to identify issues with a problematic claim made in two short vignettes. For example, one of the questions states:

Over the past few years, Jody has had several dreams that apparently predicted actual events. For example, in one dream, she saw a car accident and later that week she saw a van run into the side of a pickup truck. In another dream, she saw dark black clouds and lightning and 2days later a loud thunderstorm hit her neighborhood. She believes these events are evidence that she has a psychic ability to predict the future through her dreams. Could the event have occurred by chance? State whether or not there is a problem with the person’s conclusions and explain the problem (if there is one).

Responses were scored based on the rubric provided in the original measurement ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). If no problem was identified the participants would receive zero points. If a problem was recognized but misidentified, the participants would receive one point. If the main problem was identified and other less relevant problems were identified, the participants received two points. If participants identified only the main problem, they received three points. Following the rubric, four graduate students independently rated the students’ critical thinking task. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for both vignettes (0.773 and 0.712). The average of the four scores given by the experts was used as the final score for the participants.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test

This objective measure of critical thinking was developed by Facione and Facione (1994) . We used CCT to measure a few of the multidimensions of critical thinking such as evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking. Five sample items provided from Insight Assessment were used instead of the standard 40-min long CCT. Participants were presented with everyday scenarios with 4–6 answer choices. Participants were asked to make an accurate and complete interpretation of the question in order to correctly answer the question by choosing the right answer choice (each correct answer was worth one point). This test is commonly used to measure critical thinking, and previous research has reported its reliability as r =0.86 ( Hariri and Bagherinejad, 2012 ).

Sternberg Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning

This measure was developed by Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) as an assessment of scientific reasoning. We used this assessment as a domain-specific assessment to measure participants’ scientific creativity (generating testable hypotheses) and scientific critical thinking involved in generating experiments. For this two-part measure, participants were asked to read two short vignettes. For one of the vignettes, participants were asked to generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain the events described in the vignette. For the other, create an experiment to test the hypothesis mentioned in the vignette.

After carefully reviewing the measurement, we notice that the nature of the tasks in the first part of this measure (hypothesis generation) relied on heuristics, requiring participants to engage in divergent thinking. The number of valid hypotheses provided (i.e., fluency) was used to represent the performance of this task. We, therefore, deem that this part measures creativity. In contrast, the second part of the measure, experiment generation, asked participants to use valid scientific methods to design an experiment following the procedure of critical thinking such as evaluation, problem-solving, and task evaluation. Its scoring also followed algorithms so that a correct answer could be achieved. For the above reasons, we believe hypotheses generation is a measurement of creativity and experiment generation is a measurement for critical thinking.

Based on the recommended scoring manual, one graduate student calculated the fluency score from the hypothesis generation measurement. Four experts read through all students’ responses to the experiment generation. They discussed a rubric on how to score these responses, using a four-point scale, with a “0” representing no response or wrong response, a “1” representing partially correct, a “2” representing correct response. An additional point (the three points) was added if the participant provided multiple design methods. Based on the above rubric, the four experts independently scored this part of the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the four expert ratings was 0.792. The average score of the four judges was used to represent their critical thinking scores on this task.

College Experience Survey

Participants were asked about their past research experience, either specifically in psychology or in general academia. Participants were asked to choose between three choices: no research experience, intermediate research experience (i.e., research work for class, research work for lab), and advanced research experience (i.e., professional research experience, published works).

Demographic and Background Questionnaire

Series of standard demographic questions were asked, including participants’ age, gender, and ethnicity.

We performed a Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between creativity and critical thinking (the two-c), which include performances on three measures on creativity ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ) and three measures on critical thinking ( experiment generation , CCT , and PCT ).

Most of the dependent variables had a significantly positive correlation. The only insignificant correlation was found between Sternberg hypothesis generation and CCT, r (247) =0.024, p =0.708 (see Table 1 ).

Correlation coefficients for study variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted by applying SEM through AMOS 21 software program and the maximum likelihood method. One-factor and two-factor models have been analyzed, respectively (see Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-760351-g001.jpg

The comparison of the two confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models: one-factor vs. two-factor.

As it is demonstrated in Table 2 , the value ranges of the most addressed fit indices used in the analysis of SEM are presented. Comparing two models, χ 2 /df of the two-factor model is in a good fit, while the index of the one-factor model is in acceptable fit. The comparison of the two models suggest that the two-factor model is a better model than the one-factor model.

Recommended values for evaluation and the obtained values.

RMSEA,root mean square error of approximation; NFI, normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness-of-fit index; and AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit-index ( Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003 ).

Cross-Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking and Creativity

We conducted a 2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking) ANOVA to investigate the cultural differences in critical thinking and creativity. We averaged scores of three critical thinking measurement ( experiment generation , PCT , and CCT ) to represent critical thinking and averaged three creativity scores ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ).

This analysis revealed a significant main effect for the type of thinking (i.e., creative vs. critical thinking), F (1,247) =464.77, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.653. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and type of thinking, F (1,247) =62.00, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.201. More specifically, Chinese students ( M =1.32, SD =0.59) outperformed American students ( M =1.02, SD =0.44) on critical thinking. In contrast, American students ( M =2.59, SD =1.07) outperformed Chinese students ( M =2.05, SD =0.83) on creativity.

Influence of Research Experience on Critical Thinking and Creativity

The last hypothesis states that having college research experience (through courses or research lab) would enhance students’ creativity and critical thinking from both countries. We performed a 2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking)×2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×3 (Research Experience: Advanced vs. Some vs. No) ANOVA to test this hypothesis. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for research experience, F (2,239) =4.05, p =0.019, η p 2 =0.033. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and research experience, F (2,239) =5.77, p =0.004, η p 2 =0.046. In addition, there was a three-way interaction among country, two-C, and research experience. More specifically, with an increase of research experience for American students, both critical thinking and creativity improved. In contrast, for Chinese students, the impact of research experience was not significant for creativity. However, some research experience positively impacted Chinese students’ critical thinking (see Figure 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-760351-g002.jpg

Estimated marginal means of Two-C for the United States and Chinese samples.

The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, how culture influences creativity and critical thinking, and how college research experience affects creativity and critical thinking. Our results supported the first hypothesis regarding the positive correlation among all of the dependent variables. The mean correlation between the measures of creativity and critical thinking was 0.230. This result was in line with the findings from previous research ( Gibson et al., 1968 ; Gadzella and Penland, 1995 ; Siburian et al., 2019 ; Akpur, 2020 ; Qiang et al., 2020 ). Moreover, our confirmatory factor analysis yielded similar results as analysis of Wechsler et al. (2018) and Akpur (2020) and provides more evidence of the relative independence between creativity and critical thinking. We found that at the latent variable level, the two skills are highly correlated to each other ( r =0.84). In addition, we found that although the one-factor model was an acceptable fit, a two-factor model was a better fit for analysis. This result suggests that despite the correlation between creativity and critical thinking, the two skills should be studied as separate factors for an appropriate and comprehensive analysis.

The results of this study partially confirmed our second hypothesis and replicated the findings from past studies ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Lun et al., 2010 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). As predicted, there was a significant main effect for culture in students’ performance for all six measures in the two-C analysis model. United States students performed better than Chinese students in all three creativity measures, and Chinese students performed better than United States students in all critical thinking measures. Given the diversity in the type of measures used in this study, the results suggest that United States and Chinese students’ performance aligns with the stereotype belief found in study of Wong and Niu (2013) . The findings from the current study suggest that the stereotype belief observed in both United States and Chinese students (United States students generally perform better on creativity tasks, while Chinese students perform typically better on critical thinking tasks) is not entirely unfounded. Furthermore, the clear discrepancy in performance between United States and Chinese students provides more evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are relatively autonomous skills. Although, a high correlation between these two skills was found in our study, the fact that students from two different cultures have two different development trajectories in critical thinking and creativity suggests that these two skills are relatively autonomous.

Lastly, the results also confirmed our third hypothesis, that is, college research experience did have a positive influence on students’ creativity and critical thinking. Compared to students with no research experience, students with some research experience performed significantly better in all measures of creativity and critical thinking. This finding is consistent with the previous literature ( Mill et al., 1994 ; Penningroth et al., 2007 ; Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ; Kuo et al., 2018 ). The result of our study suggests that college research experience is significant to enhance both creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes a more essential component of college education, our results suggest that it not only can add credential for applying to graduate school or help students learn skills specific to research, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this nature held true for both Chinese and American students. To our knowledge, this is a first investigation examining the role of research experience in both creativity and critical thinking cross-culturally.

In addition to the report of our findings, we would like to address some limitations of our study. First, we would like to note that this is a correlational and cross-sectional study. A positive correlation between research experience and the two dependent variables does not necessarily mean causation. Our results indeed indicate a positive correlation between research experience and the two-C variables; however, we are not sure of the nature of this relationship. It is plausible that students with higher creativity and critical thinking skills are more engaged in research as much as it is to argue in favor of a reversed directional relationship. Second, we would like to note the sample bias in our study. Majority of our participants were female, majoring in the social sciences and a relatively high number of participants chose not to report their gender. Third, we would like to note that our study did not measure all creativity and critical thinking dimensions, we discussed in the introduction. Instead, we focused on a few key dimensions of creativity and critical thinking. Our primary focus was on divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and scientific creativity as well as few key dimensions of critical thinking (evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking), scientific critical thinking involved in problem solving and hypothesis testing. Moreover, our results do not show what specific components of research training are beneficial for the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking.

For future research, a longitudinal design involving a field experiment will help investigate how different research training components affect the development of creativity and critical thinking. In addition, a cross-cultural study can further examine how and why the students from different cultures differ from each other in the development of these two potentials. As such, it might shed some light on the role of culture in creativity and critical thinking.

Conclusion and Implication

The result of our study provides few insights to the study of creativity and critical thinking. First, creativity and critical thinking are a different construct yet highly correlated. Second, whereas Americans perform better on creativity measures, Chinese perform better on critical thinking measures. Third, for both American and Chinese students, college research experience is a significant influence on the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes more and more essential to college education, its role can not only add professional and postgraduate credentials, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking.

Based on our results, we recommend that research training be prioritized in higher education. Moreover, each culture has strengths to develop one skill over the other, hence, each culture could invest more in developing skills that were found to be weaker in our study. Eastern cultures can encourage more creativity and Western cultures can encourage more critical thinking.

To conclude, we would like to highlight that, although recognized globally as essential skills, methods to foster creativity and critical thinking skills and understanding creativity and critical thinking as a construct requires further research. Interestingly, our study found that experience of research itself can help enhance creativity and critical thinking. Our study also aimed to expand the knowledge of creativity and critical thinking literature through an investigation of the relationship of the two variables and how cultural background influences the performance of these two skills. We hope that our findings can provide insights for researchers and educators to find constructive methods to foster students’ essential 21st century skills, creativity and critical thinking, to ultimately enhance their global competence and life success.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board at Pace University. The participants provided their informed consent online prior to participating in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication., conflict of interest.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This work was supported by the International Joint Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (ICER201904), and a scholarly research funding by Pace University.

  • Akpur U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement . Think. Skills Creat. 37 :100683. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Amabile T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43 , 997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Amabile T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity. ” Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • American Psychological Association (2016). Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: version 2.0 . Am. Psychol. 71 , 102–111. doi: 10.1037/a0037562, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barbot B., Besançon M., Lubart T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom . Open Educ. J. 4 , 58–66. doi: 10.2174/1874920801104010058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barron F., Harrington D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32 , 439–476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bechtoldt M., Choi H., Nijstad A. B. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart: individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 838–844. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bensley D. A., Murtagh M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment . Teach. Psychol. 39 , 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0098628311430642 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boyack K. W., Klavans R., Börner K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science . Scientometrics 64 , 351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Byrge C., Tang C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production . Think. Skills Creat. 16 , 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carson S. H., Peterson J. B., Higgins D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire . Creat. Res. J. 17 , 37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Corazza G. E., Lubart T. (2021). Intelligence and creativity: mapping constructs on the space-time continuum . J. Intell. 9 :1. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9010001, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Csikszentmihalyi M. (1988). “ Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity ” in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press; ), 325–339. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Csikszentmihalyi M. (1999). “ Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity ” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 313–335. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Diedrich J., Jauk E., Silvia P. J., Gredlein J. M., Neubauer A. C., Benedek M. (2018). Assessment of real-life creativity: the inventory of creative activities and achievements (ICAA) . Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12 , 304–316. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ennis R. H. (1987). “ A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities ” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. eds. Baron J. B., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.), 9–26. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ennis R. H., Millman J., Tomko T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level x and Level z Manual. 3rd Edn . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Facione P. A., Facione N. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gadzella B. M., Penland E. (1995). Is creativity related to scores on critical thinking? Psychol. Rep. 77 , 817–818. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.817 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gibson J. W., Kibler R. J., Barker L. L. (1968). Some relationships between selected creativity and critical thinking measures . Psychol. Rep. 23 , 707–714. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3.707, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Glaser E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Glassner A., Schwartz B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Think. Skills Creat. 2 , 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gough H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 , 1398–1405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Guilford J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect . Psychol. Bull. 53 , 267–293. doi: 10.1037/h0040755, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Guilford J. P. (1986). Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Guilford J. P., Christensen P. R., Merrifield P. R., Wilson R. C. (1960). Alternate Uses Manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Guo J., Woulfin S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: an investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity . Roeper Rev. 38 , 153–161. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Halpern D. F. (1984). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Halpern D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker . New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1999 , 69–74. doi: 10.1002/tl.8005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hariri N., Bagherinejad Z. (2012). Evaluation of critical thinking skills in students of health faculty, Mazandaran university of medical sciences . J. Mazand. Univ. Med. Sci. 21 , 166–173. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hocevar D., Michael W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 39 , 917–921. doi: 10.1177/001316447903900427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Huber C. R., Kuncel N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis . Rev. Educ. Res. 86 , 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hunter S. T., Bedell K. E., Mumford M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: a quantitative review . Creat. Res. J. 19 , 69–90. doi: 10.1080/10400410709336883 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jellen H. U., Urban K. (1989). Assessing creative potential worldwide: the first cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT–DP) . Gifted Educ. 6 , 78–86. doi: 10.1177/026142948900600204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kim K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis . J. Sec. Gifted Educ. 16 , 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Korn M. (2014). Bosses Seek ‘Critical Thinking,’ but What Is That? Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://online.wsj.com/articles/bosses-seek-critical-thinking-but-what-is-that-1413923730 (Accessed October 18, 2021).
  • Kuo H.-C., Tseng Y.-C., Yang Y.-T. C. (2018). Promoting college student's learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course . Think. Skills Creat. 31 , 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lamont P. (2020). The construction of "critical thinking": between how we think and what we believe . Hist. Psychol. 23 , 232–251. doi: 10.1037/hop0000145, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Land M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: the benefits of integrating the arts into STEM . Compl. Adapt. Syst. 20 , 547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lawson T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors . Teach. Psychol. 26 , 207–209. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260311 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lawson T. J., Jordan-Fleming M. K., Bodle J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking . Teach. Psychol. 42 , 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lee H.-J., Lee J., Makara K. A., Fishman B. J., Hong Y. I. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 34 , 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ling M. K. D., Loh S. C. (2020). Relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition among Singapore private school students . J. Educ. Res. 113 , 59–76. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1716203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Liou S., Lan X. (2018). Situational salience of norms moderates cultural differences in the originality and usefulness of creative ideas generated or selected by teams . J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49 , 290–302. doi: 10.1177/0022022116640897 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lopatto D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings . Cell Biol. Educ. 3 , 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lopatto D. (2008). “ Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences: The SURE survey ” in Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton (New York: Teachers College Press; ), 112–132. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lubart T., Zenasni F., Barbot B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement . Int. J. Talent Dev. Creat. 1 , 41–50. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lun V. M.-C., Fischer R., Ward C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 604–616. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Manalo E., Kusumi T., Koyasu M., Michita Y., Tanaka Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students' critical thinking use? Think. Skills Creat. 10 , 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mill D., Gray T., Mandel D. R. (1994). Influence of research methods and statistics courses on everyday reasoning, critical abilities, and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena . Can. J. Behav. Sci. 26 , 246–258. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.246 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mueller J. F., Taylor H. K., Brakke K., Drysdale M., Kelly K., Levine G. M., et al.. (2020). Assessment of scientific inquiry and critical thinking: measuring APA goal 2 student learning outcomes . Teach. Psychol. 47 , 274–284. doi: 10.1177/0098628320945114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Education Association (2012). Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An educator's Guide to the "Four Cs". Alexandria, VA: National Education Association. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ng A.K. (2001). Why Asians Are less Creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nisbett R. E., Peng K., Choi I., Norenzayan A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition . Psychol. Rev. 108 , 291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Niu L., Behar-Horenstein L. S., Garvan C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis . Educ. Res. Rev. 9 , 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Niu W., Sternberg R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation . Int. J. Psychol. 36 , 225–241. doi: 10.1080/00207590143000036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Niu W., Zhang J. X., Yang Y. (2007). Deductive reasoning and creativity: a cross-cultural study . Psychol. Rep. 100 , 509–519. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.509-519, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Paul R., Elder L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. 8th Edn . Lanham, MD: Foundation for Critical Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Penningroth S. L., Despain L. H., Gray M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking . Teach. Psychol. 34 , 153–157. doi: 10.1080/00986280701498509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Qiang R., Han Q., Guo Y., Bai J., Karwowski M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy . J. Creat. Behav. 54 , 90–99. doi: 10.1002/jocb.347 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rockstuhl T., Ng K.-Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams . In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. (eds.) Ang S., Dyne L.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 206–220. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rodriguez-Boerwinkle R., Silvia P., Kaufman J. C., Reiter-Palmon R., Puryear J. S. (2021). Taking inventory of the creative behavior inventory: an item response theory analysis of the CBI. [Preprint]. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/b7cfd [ CrossRef ]
  • Ross D., Loeffler K., Schipper S., Vandermeer B., Allan G. M. (2013). Do scores on three commonly used measures of critical thinking correlate with academic success of health professions trainees? A systematic review and meta-analysis . Acad. Med. 88 , 724–734. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b0823, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Runco M. A., Albert R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: an empirical test with gifted and nongifted children . Creat. Child Adult Q. 11 , 212–218. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schermelleh-Engel K., Moosbrugger H., Müller H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures . Methods of Psychological Research 8 , 23–74. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Scott S. G., Bruce R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace . Acad. Manag. J. 37 , 580–607. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review . Creat. Res. J. 16 , 361–388. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Scriven M., Paul R. (1987). Defining Critical Thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform ; August 2–5, 1987.
  • Siburian J., Corebima A. D., Ibrohim, Saptasari M. (2019). The correlation between critical and creative thinking skills on cognitive learning results . Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 19 , 99–114. doi: 10.14689/EJER.2019.81.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sternberg R. J., Halpern D. F. (eds.) (2020). Critical Thinking in Psychology. 2nd Edn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sternberg R. J., Lubart T. I. (1999). “ The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms ” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sternberg R. J., Sternberg K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines . J. Intell. 5 , 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stevens C., Witkow M. R. (2014). Training scientific thinking skills: evidence from an MCAT 2015 aligned classroom module . Teach. Psychol. 41 , 115–121. doi: 10.1177/0098628314530341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stevens C., Witkow M. R., Smelt B. (2016). Strengthening scientific reasoning skills in introductory psychology: evidence from community college and liberal arts classrooms . Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2 , 245–260. doi: 10.1037/stl0000070 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tang M., Werner C., Cao G., Tumasjan A., Shen J., Shi J., et al.. (2015). Creative expression and its evaluation on work-related verbal tasks: a comparison of Chinese and German samples . J. Creat. Behav. 52 , 91–103. doi: 10.1002/jocb.134 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Torrance E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Torrance E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking: Norms–Technical Manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Torrance E. P. (1988). “ The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing ” in The Nature of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press; ), 43–73. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tsui L. (1998). Fostering Critical Thinking in College Students: A Mixed-Methods Study of Influences Inside and Outside of the Classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9917229)
  • Wallach M. A., Kogan N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Watson G. B., Glaser E. M. (1938). The Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Institute for Propaganda Analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Watson G. B., Glaser E. M. (1980). WGCTA Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual: Forms A and B. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wechsler S. M., Saiz C., Rivas S. F., Vendramini C. M. M., Almeida L. S., Mundim M. C., et al.. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27 , 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wong R., Niu W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity . J. Creat. Behav. 47 , 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zydney A. L., Bennett J. S., Shahid A., Bauer K. W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering . J. Eng. Educ. 91 , 291–297. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00706.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

  1. PSY 389 Cross Cultural Psychology TEMPLATE-1.docx

    cross cultural psychology assignment

  2. Cross-Cultural Psychology Lecture 1. Brief History and Research

    cross cultural psychology assignment

  3. Cross Cultural Psyc (357)

    cross cultural psychology assignment

  4. [ Cross-cultural Psychology ] Studying Culture (2020-09-12)

    cross cultural psychology assignment

  5. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Basic Definitions

    cross cultural psychology assignment

  6. Psy 450 week 1 individual assignment introduction to cross cultural

    cross cultural psychology assignment

VIDEO

  1. FINAL ASSIGNMENT CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION ( SEMESTER 1 2023-2024)

  2. Cross Cultural Communication (Part2)

  3. Cross-cultural Interview Analysis

  4. Literature in the cross cultural perspective

  5. [ Cross-cultural Psychology ] Collectivism and Individualism (2020-09-19)

  6. Teaching in a Cross-Cultural Context

COMMENTS

  1. Cross-Cultural Psychology

    Cross-Cultural Psychology. Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that explores the similarities and differences in thinking and behavior between individuals from different cultures ...

  2. PSY324

    Rating. year. Ratings. Describe how East African cultural beliefs related to death might affect medical decisions and grieving. Cross-Cultural Psychology (PSY324) With references, Provide examples of behavior that might arise based on the type of uncertainty avoidance in East African cultural setting. Cross-Cultural Psychology (PSY324)

  3. What Is Cross-Cultural Psychology?

    Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that looks at how cultural factors influence human behavior. While many aspects of human thought and behavior are universal, cultural differences can lead to often surprising differences in how people think, feel, and act. Some cultures, for example, might stress individualism and the ...

  4. Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

    Ethical Issues. Cross-cultural research allows you to identify important similarities and differences across cultures. This research approach involves comparing two or more cultural groups on psychological variables of interest to understand the links between culture and psychology better. As Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain, cross ...

  5. What Is Cross-Cultural Psychology? 11 Theories & Examples

    An early textbook on cross-cultural psychology, authored by John Berry, professor of psychology at Queen's University, Canada, set out three goals that cross-cultural psychologists should address (Berry, Poortinga, Marshall, & Dasen, 1992; Ellis & Stam, 2015):. First and most importantly, test the field's generality by looking at how different cultures respond to standard psychological tests.

  6. PDF Syllabus Psyc 354: Cross-cultural Psychology

    Cross-cultural psychology offers an opportunity to develop an appreciation of the interplay of individual, ethnic, and cultural contributions to personal and group growth and well-being and their role in psychotherapy and cross-cultural interactions. We will focus on both within culture variability as well as between culture variability.

  7. PDF Cross-Cultural Psychology

    The course examines core principles of psychology from a cultural perspective. Basic to understanding people and their development in different cultures is the knowledge of their values, beliefs, and attitudes. The course also studies general aspects of clinical psychology as they are applied to different cultures, especially the French and US ...

  8. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Sage Journals

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. For 50 years the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology has provided a leading interdisciplinary forum for psychologists, sociologists, and other researchers who study the relations between culture and behavior. View full journal description.

  9. Assigning Culture: an example of a cross-cultural assignment for

    The present study examined the effect of an assignment involving a book report and literature review that incorporated cross-cultural psychology into an introductory course. Students were assigned a book on cross-cultural applications of psychology in addition to a standard introductory textbook. Students selected a mental illness as a report ...

  10. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Current Research and Trends

    Cross-Cultural Research in Psychology R W Brislin Annual Review of Psychology Health Psychology J Rodin, and and P Salovey Annual Review of Psychology CROSS-CULTURAL SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Michael Harris Bond and Peter B. Smith Annual Review of Psychology Psychology and Culture Darrin R. Lehman, Chi-yue Chiu, and Mark Schaller

  11. WK. 6 Worksheet Assignment

    PSYC 2001: Cross-Cultural Psychology Week 6 Application Assignment: Culture-Bound Syndromes and the DSM-V. Analyze perspectives on psychological disorders across cultures. What are the similarities and differences between how culture-bound syndromes and the DSM-V look at psychological behavior?

  12. Cross-Cultural Psychology

    The term cross-cultural psychology often refers to studies that are based on comparisons of behavioral or psychological phenomena across cultural groups, although many cultural studies are focused on within-group behaviors and views. Cross-cultural work is particularly important for distinguishing universal processes from those that vary across cultures.

  13. PS367-15 Psychology Across Cultures

    Module aims. The module highlights the importance of a cross-cultural perspective for understanding and explaining different contemporary issues such as migration, ethnic conflicts, globalisation and cultural change. In academic terms, the module aims to develop the students' understanding of the fundamental concepts and theoretical ...

  14. PDF representative different your

    For this assignment, you will work with 3 other students to submit a research paper and present it to the classon a cross-cultural comparison of a psychological processes. Your presentation should be engaging and can include audiovisual aids including, but not limited to PowerPoint slides, video clips, and Prezi (to name a few).

  15. Individual Assignment 1

    Psychology Assignment 1; Related documents. Psychology Assignment; Thesis - work study; Article summary; ... Cross-cultural psychology is a research psychology that investigates the psychological knowledge of the various cultural background and looks at how cultural factor affects human behavior. It helped to examine the possible limitations in ...

  16. Assignment Title Exploring Cross-Cultural Psychology

    This assignment aims to explore the complexities of cultural diversity and its impact on psychological processes, including perception, communication, social behavior, and mental health. Objective: The objective of this assignment is to introduce students to the principles and methods of cross-cultural psychology and to foster an understanding ...

  17. Assigning culture: An example of a cross-cultural assignment for

    Psychology teachers and textbooks continually introduce content into courses that emphasizes diversity in all forms, particularly those attributed to culture. The present study examined the effect of an assignment involving a book report and literature review that incorporated cross-cultural psychology into an introductory course. Students were assigned a book on cross-cultural applications of ...

  18. PDF Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology (Otrp)

    Resources for Teaching Cross-Cultural Issues in Psychology." Annotated List of Videotapes (pp. 14-16) The section provides an updated annotated list of videos that can be used to illustrate cross-cultural ... An example interview assignment is shown below. Project: Interviewing a Person from a Foreign Country ...

  19. Assigning Culture: An Example of a Cross-Cultural Assignment for

    Psychology teachers and textbooks continually introduce content into courses that emphasizes diversity in all forms, particularly those attributed to culture. The present study examined the effect of an assignment involving a book report and literature review that incorporated cross-cultural psychology into an introductory course.

  20. Cross-cultural Psychology

    Cross-cultural psychology is the study of how cultural variables influence human behavior, cognition, and emotion. It is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes under various cultural contexts, including their variety and invariance. It investigates how culture shapes and influences diverse psychological processes, including ...

  21. PSY 213 Assignment 1 (docx)

    Cross-Cultural Psychology à la française: An Overview of Interdisciplinary Intercultural Studies and Intercultural Psychology This article offers a comprehensive overview of cross-cultural psychology in France, emphasizing its interdisciplinary nature and contributions to understanding the impact of culture on human behavior. It acknowledges France's historical involvement in shaping this ...

  22. PSY 324 Final Project

    7-2 Assignment: Final Project Tim Weaver Cross-Cultural Psychology/PSY 324 March 28, 2023 Professor Baker. In the Northern regions of the country if Thailand, located in the hills of the mountain area, is a tribe called the Akha. Although they are in Thailand, Horst (2019) tells us that the authorities in Thailand does not consider the tribe to ...

  23. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural

    In summary, cross-cultural studies have supported the notion that culture influences both creativity and critical thinking. This cultural influence seems relatively unambiguous in creativity as it has been found in multiple studies that cultural background can explain differences in performance and preference to the dual features of creativity.

  24. PSYC 2001 : Cross Cultural Psychology

    Deneishia Williams Cross-Cultural Psychology Week 1 Assignment When I think of the word culture it is what makes up a society and it is what make people all over special from the way they walk, talk, dress and act. There are many cultures that makes the w. PSYC 2001. Walden University.