Diversity
Alfonso Montuori, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, CA, United States
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Diversity Definition
Introduction
Diversity: Source of Problems and Source of Creativity
Groups and Cultures
Jazz and Openness to Diversity
Culture and Creativities
Attitudes Towards Diversity
Travel and Culture: Diversifying the Mind
Diversity and Inclusion in Creativity Research
Conclusion
References
368
368
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
375
Glossary
Bicultural Bicultural individuals have experienced and internalized two cultures
Closed-mindedness The need to have a certain answer
Cognitive flexibility The ability to engage multiple concepts simultaneously and adapt behavior to one’s environment
Essentialism The view that women and men, or different racial groups have specific “essences” that make them what they are.
Integrative Complexity A high level of differentiation and integration of a plurality of perspectives
Diversity Definition
The term diversity refers to difference, and in this context a diverse system is one in which human beings that have been categorized
as different from each other coexist. Common categories include race, gender, class, culture, ethnic origin, religion, and sexual orientation. Other relevant forms of diversity include cognitive diversity, and importantly diversity in attitudes toward diversity. Where
diversity refers to the demographic fact of differences, pluralism is the intentional effort to engage diversity to create a mutually
beneficial, generative social system.
Introduction
The relationship between creativity and diversity is complex. Historically cultural diversity has been a primary engine of innovation
(Zachary, 2003). More mundanely, diverse groups come up with more uses for a brick than homogeneous groups. Culturally
diverse groups also come up with more ways to prepare a chicken, whether Tandoori Chicken, Chicken Kiev, Pollo en Mole, or Pollo
al Mattone, an Italian preparation involving a chicken flattened by, appropriately, a brick. Diversity can lead to creativity, but it can
also lead to conflict and fragmentation. The term diversity is notably used in the context of prejudice, racism, systematic oppression,
bias, and the “diversity trainings” created to address them. The creativity of diversity is by definition a social, interactive creativity,
a multidimensional phenomenon that has psychological, interpersonal, and cultural dimensions. In order for diversity, understood
broadly as demographic difference, to lead to creativity, it requires an intentional effort to find mutual understanding, bridge and
leverage differences and remain open to the possibility of creation.
Diversity: Source of Problems and Source of Creativity
In the mid-20th century, humanistic psychologists like Abraham Maslow drew attention to the fact that the discipline of psychology
had focused on humanity’s pathological manifestations (what was sometimes referred to as “aggression and depression”) but was
much less knowledgeable about psychological health, well-being, and creativity. The focus on psychological health and optimal
functioning was later followed by Positive Psychology. In the same way, the Indian political psychologist Ashis Nandy has pointed
out that there is a “conspicuous asymmetry” between studies focusing on violence and those focusing on creativity or non-violent
exchanges between different cultures and ethnicities (Nandy, 2002). Some media present dramatic stories of violent clashes
368
Encyclopedia of Creativity, 3rd edition, Volume 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.23866-2
Diversity
369
between groups, extremist over moderate voices, and tend to focus on violence. Creativity in the study of culture and religion can
still be found in current affairs and in the research and practices of diversity.
One of the key problems facing the global discourse of diversity is that it is increasingly framed as a problem, and at best a problem
to be managed (Montuori and Stephenson, 2010). The growing crisis of immigration, with refugees fleeing war zones, political and
ethnic persecution and economic hardship has put a strain on some countries and has been one source of this approach. At the same
time there has been a rise in authoritarian leaders around the world. Historically such leaders have used propaganda to demonize
out-groups, often for the purpose of bringing a group or a nation together under the pretense of fighting a common internal or
external threat. Authoritarianism always involves attempts to homogenize, hierarchize, and set up black and white alternatives,
setting in-group against out-group. Around 60% of Americans believe the presence of people of different races, ethnic groups,
and nationalities makes the United States a better place to live.
In organizations, diversity trainings attempt to instruct people in how to avoid being insensitive, abusive, stereotyping, offensive,
and how not to break the law. There is greater awareness of the pervasiveness of racism, sexism, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity and bias toward other cultures and out-groups, and of incidents of prejudice. Thus it is perhaps not
surprising that there is more emphasis on highlighting persistent and inexcusable injustice. The focus is on individual and collective
problematic attitudes and behaviors and what can be done to avoid them. Nevertheless, the two dominant approaches to issues of
diversity in the United States, “colorblindness” and multiculturalism, make both minorities and non-minorities feel excluded they
have been found to be largely ineffective (Kalev et al., 2006; Plaut et al., 2018).
The real and the potential benefits of diversity, the articulation what a thriving diverse society or organization might be like, and
the propagation of examples from history to illustrate how the creativity of diversity has fueled human flourishing have not received
the attention that racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination have. There is scant popular awareness of the historical role of
creative diversity in such key places and times such as The Gupta period of India, Periclean Athens and the rich culture of the Mediterranean, the reign of the Kangxi emperor, Florence in the Renaissance, Al-Andalus, the Silk Road, the exchanges across the Indian
Ocean, Vienna at the turn of the 20th century, and many other significant examples of cultural creativity. While certain places and
times have been recognized and studied as particularly significant moments in human history, creativity research has not engaged
with them extensively. Indeed, creativity researchers have only recently begun to address the complexities of social and cultural creativity (Simonton, 2003).
Disciplinary fragmentation has meant that research on the interaction of creativity, culture, and diversity can be found scattered
in a wide range of disciplines such as Cultural Studies, Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies, and History. These disciplines are often not
informed by what is traditionally known as creativity research as documented in this encyclopedia. Creativity research is in a position to make a substantial contribution to the discourse and practices of diversity, and the challenge of diversity also involves diversifying creativity research itself by making it more transdisciplinary, in dialog with a range of other disciplines, and with a more
diverse cast of researchers. A brief overview of creativity and diversity in groups and culture gives a sense of the range and scope
of the existing research and the opportunities that lie ahead.
Groups and Cultures
In the United States historically groups were frequently associated with the phenomenon known as groupthink, which is in fact
quite antithetical to creativity (Janis, 1983). Creativity was associated almost exclusively with individuals, which meant relationships and exchanges were not researched. Research on creativity in groups is a relatively recent phenomenon sparked to some extent
by the interest in creativity and innovation in industry where the value of creative groups is great. The study of creative groups in jazz
and more generally in the arts has also contributed to the development of this field (Sawyer, 2006) (See Teams).
The phenomenon of groupthink is particularly interesting because it involves a number of factors, all of which conspire to
homogenize the group, eliminate diversity of perspectives and creativity. They include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The unwillingness to examine anything but a few alternative courses of action, often only two, without a survey of the full
alternatives;
Failure to examine the course of action initially preferred by the majority of the members from the standpoint of non-obvious
risks and drawbacks that had not been evaluated originally;
Neglect of courses of action initially evaluated as unsatisfactory by the majority;
Little or no time is spent discussing whether non-obvious gains have been overlooked or whether the ways of reducing seemingly
prohibitive costs which make alternatives undesirable;
Few if any attempts to obtain information from experts who can supply sound estimates of losses and gains to be expected from
alternative courses of action;
Selective bias is shown in the way the group reacts to factual information and relevant judgments from experts, the media, and
outside critics;
Members take interest in facts that support their initially preferred policy, and take up time in their meetings to discuss them, but
they ignore facts and opinions which do not support their policy;
Members spend little time deliberating about how the chosen policy might be hindered by bureaucratic inertia, sabotaged by
political opponents, or temporarily derailed by the common accidents that befall the best of plans.
370
Diversity
Groups that become victims of groupthink have already made up their minds and are unwilling to listen to any other views. There is
a pressure to conform and go along with the group consensus. In terms of the creative process, they cannot accept divergent
thinking, because they have already converged on the right policy or plan. Victims of groupthink therefore eliminate creativity altogether to the extent that no diversity of perspectives or alternatives are encouraged. The group process to some extent displays
processes that occur at the individual level but writ large. “Premature closure,” or the unwillingness to explore alternatives after
the initial diagnosis, is the most common error in medical diagnoses, for instance. Minority dissent on the other hand stimulates
creative thinking, as does an insistence of maintaining a diversity of perspectives in the group (Nemeth, 2018).
There are many ways that diversity fosters creativity. A diversity of background, knowledge, and perspectives enhances creativity
in groups. The presence of group-members with diverse perspectives can lead to more creativity and problem-solving ability than
a group of experts. A dramatic example occurred when Eli Lilly created a Website where members of the public could engage with
scientific problems that the company’s researchers were facing. The company promised a financial reward for the solutions to the
problems, which ranged from breast cancer risk assessment to the detection of organic chemical vapors to tracing metal impurities
(Page, 2008). The success rate of this approach was remarkably high, and now open-sourced and distributed problem-solving have
become significant sources of innovation. The reason why they work is because when problems are complex, diversity trumps
ability.
Teams can have cognitive differences, which is one form of diversity. These differences can include different perspectives, or ways
of representing situations or problems; different interpretations, or ways perspectives are categorized; diverse heuristics, or ways of
creating solutions for problems; and diverse predictive models, which address cause and effect. A positive atmosphere, and an
absence of relational conflict are important, but challenges and stress are also needed to bring the best out of the group. Differences
of perspective can lead to conflict, and yet it is not the content of the conflict that is most important but the way it is addressed. In
fact, conflict can even be generative, and lead to more creativity. In order to be creative, diverse groups have to be creative about their
diversity and about how they get along. Cultural and more broadly demographic diversity can also be beneficial for group creativity.
In order for demographic diversity to be beneficial, the group needs to be motivated to make it work and needs to work together to
create trust. Having respect for the ability of others is an important factor in establishing a foundation for diverse groups. This takes
us back to the difference between diversity, which refers to the fact of diverse elements in any system, and pluralism, the intentional
effort to engage diversity to create a mutually beneficial, generative social system. The creative group or organization or society is
itself a creation (See Group Creativity).
Creative groups are marked by paradoxical relationships found in the form of both/and creative tensions. R&D scientists for
instances have been shown to want autonomy and interaction, specialization and broad interests, the pursuit of interested problems
for their own sake and practical results. Belbin’s work addresses the importance of experiential diversity in groups and proposes
a specific set of roles in a group facilitates the creative process. The roles are the Plant (or Idea-generator), The Shaper who shapes
and drives the process, The Resource Investigator who finds and mobilizes resources, The Coordinator, who ensures equitable
participation, The Specialist, who is brings technical knowledge, The Monitor-Evaluator, who acts as critic, The Implementer
who focuses on the product, The Completer-Finisher who acts as the detail person, and the Team-Worker who maintains morale
and cohesion (Belbin, 2012). Whether or not groups actually include the broad range of diverse perspectives, roles, and aptitudes
Belbin suggests, his research indicates that the right mix of diverse experiences and capabilities is helpful in a group.
Diversity has consistently contributed to musical innovation. Port cities from Lesbos to Liverpool, New Orleans, Havana, Kingston, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador da Bahia, and Venice have always been centers of musical innovation (Gioia, 2019). A multicultural
mix has always led to a thriving musical scene. Port cities and multicultural communities have always benefited from the exchange
of people and ideas, from traffic, visitors, and ideas. Simonton (Simonton, 1997) summarized this by writing that “a pluralistic
cultural milieu will more likely infuse a developing talent with the capacity to conceive new combinations of concepts and techniques that will support historically significant innovations” (p.92).
Sometimes the diversity takes the form of actual physical encounters between people of different cultures, and other times it has
been the ideas and more generally the products of one culture that influenced another culture. While Paul Gauguin actually went to
Tahiti, Van Gogh never went to Japan, but he was deeply influenced by the work of Japanese painters whose work was beginning to
be exhibited in Europe’s major centers. Fascinating loops of influence are created. In the 1950s and 1960s, musicians in England and
African nations such as Mali and Nigeria heard American blues, jazz, and rock, and were influenced by them. The British Invasion
brought bands like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones to the United States, and they in turn influenced generations of American
musicians. Musicologists and musicians such as Ry Cooder traveled to Mali to hear how African music has been at the roots of American blues, brought over with slaves, and performed with Malian musicians.
Jazz and Openness to Diversity
Jazz is considered to be one of America’s greatest contributions to the arts. It originated at the beginning of the 20th century in New
Orleans, a city with a rich diversity of cultural influences. In the case of jazz, these influences included complex African rhythmic and
improvisational traditions, European instruments and harmony, substantial contributions by often conservatory trained Creoles
(free Blacks who spoke Spanish and French), as well as the Black Church and Tin Pan Alley songwriters, many of whom were
Jews of Eastern European descent.
Diversity
371
Jazz emerged out of the interaction of musicians from many rich and diverse cultures and musical traditions working together in
an environment that offered many opportunities to perform. It has continued to be an open, interactive musical tradition,
continuing to draw on a plurality of other musical styles. Jazz has been an open system, where innovators and conservatives
have been in continual dialog and as a result, it has developed many significant sub-categories. A number of musicians drew explicitly from Western classical music. For instance, Duke Ellington recorded Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite and Grieg’s Peer Gynt, Charlie
Parker recorded the lush Charlie Parker with Strings, and Miles Davis’s recording Sketches of Spain included the second movement of
Spanish composer Joaquin Rodrigo’s Concierto de Aranjuez. Latin Jazz continues to be an important branch, first brought to popular
attention by the Juan Tizol composition Caravan for the Duke Ellington band, and then the popular work of Dizzy Gillespie and
Stan Kenton. In the 60’s the Bossa Nova sound exemplified by the classic and commercially successful recording by Stan Getz and
Antonio Carlos Jobim, Girl from Ipanema, led to the incorporation of Brazilian rhythmic and harmonic sensibilities. The Third
Stream movement involved the incorporation of elements from European classical music, most notably in a traditional small group
setting, with the Modern Jazz Quartet being perhaps the most notable example. Leading figures such as Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, and groups such as Weather Report, Headhunters, and Return to Forever incorporated elements from rock and
funk. Weather Report’s Joe Zawinul led The Zawinul Syndicate, an innovative band that over the years has included musicians from
several continents including vocalist Sabine Kabongo from Belgium and the Congo, drummer Paco Sery from the Ivory Coast,
percussionist Aziz Sahmaoui from Marocco, percussionist vocalist Arto Tunçboyacyan from Turkey, and guitarist Amit Chatterjee
from India. Herbie Hancock’s The Imagine Project album featured collaborations with musicians such as Ireland’s The Chieftains,
Indian sitar player Anoushka Shankar, Malian singer Oumou Sangare, and others.
The challenge with these projects that bring together diverse musicians who often very different musical backgrounds is the integration in a cohesive whole where, once again, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, rather than less. While these two projects
have been successful, is certainly not the case that every such effort at bringing musicians from different cultures has been equally
successful. Research on group creativity is in its infancy compared to research on creative individuals, but the challenge of diversity
with all its potential makes it an even more urgent task.
The changing styles that emerge from these interactions are reflected in the changing categories of the Recording Academy’s
Grammy awards, music’s equivalent of the Oscars. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were obviously no categories for rap, since the
genre had not yet been created. The categories are determined largely by the number of submissions in each one, and therefore
reflect the popularity of different styles. Certain categories grow and others shrink or even disappear, and controversies have developed about the loss of certain categories, such as the temporary disappearance of Latin Jazz, and the criteria for categorizing music. It
is hard to assess how to categorize the increasing number of recordings that span multiple categories, such as rap and metal, or
works with American and African musicians that trace the African roots of the blues in Mali. Ever more capacious umbrella terms
such as Roots Music have been used to encompass multiple genres of music. A term like “world music” essentially embraced a huge
number of genres and artists from all over the world simply by setting them in opposition to popular music in the United States and
to a lesser extent Europe. The term has come in for criticism because it reflects an attitude that marginalizes any non-Western music
as “the rest.”
Continuing musical cross-pollinations also point to areas of potential controversy when it comes to the relationship of creativity
and diversity. The evolution of music through interactions and blending of styles and categories raises complex questions about
authenticity and appropriation. There is a long history of musical appropriation where, for example, styles that originate, in the
African American musical tradition are appropriated by white performers who benefit financially from them in way that the original
artists never did. While the idea of musical or other cross-pollinations may be appealing and contribute to a sense of an emerging
global culture, matters are never as simple as that. The American singer-songwriter Paul Simon worked with South-African musicians to record his extremely successful album Graceland (1986). At that time there was an artistic embargo on South Africa in
protest against the apartheid regime. Simon’s decision to record with the South African musicians of Ladysmith Black Mambazo
was very controversial and illustrates a tension between creativity and ethical and political concerns. Besides being a musical success,
Simon’s recording did a lot to draw attention to South Africa’s enormously creative musical tradition, and the shameful apartheid
policies but opinions are still divided about his decision.
Musical performance and music appreciation can bring people together. Interactions and friendships between members of
different groups, or cross-group friendships, can promote positive attitudes toward other groups and reduce prejudice. The effect
extends to people who know others who have cross-group friendships (Davies et al., 2011). In the case of diverse groups coming
together for purposes of musical interaction across cultures there is typically a mutual respect for musicianship, a feeling of friendship among musicians and a sense of belonging to the same “tribe” (musicians) regardless of ethnic or national background. The
experience of working with people one respects leads to the possibility of friendship and a diminution in prejudice. Creative collaboration, in this case in a musical context, is therefore a model for the process of bringing together people from widely different backgrounds. Engaging in a creative activity with people from different groups can therefore serve as a way to bring people together,
create positive attitudes, and the effect can spread to people who are not directly involved in the activity.
Culture and Creativities
Creativity is not conceptualized and experienced in the same way throughout the world. China and Japan offer particularly useful
examples of perspectives that are different from the American view of creativity. With the increasing emergence of a planetary culture
372
Diversity
it is becoming clear that there are diverse ways of understanding creativity, and a range of creative practices. If the current definition
of creativity is reduced to “original” and “authentic” as some Western scholars have recently suggested, these terms still appear to
resonate in different ways in China and the United States, for instance (Niu and Sternberg, 2006). Creativity offers a fascinating lens
to understand differences between cultures, and the differences can at times be dramatic. Chinese cosmology does not focus on
cosmogony, or the origin of the Universe, but on the interconnectedness of all of existence, and views the cosmos as a process
of continuous creativity (Tu, 2007) (See Regional Creativity: Asia).
The related concept of “originality” illustrates some of the differences. In the West, the value of the original, such as an original
Picasso, simply cannot be compared to a copy no matter how good. The value of the original also depends on its condition. The
better the condition, the cleaner the work, the higher the value. Chinese masterpieces, on the other hand, are regularly overwritten
by scholars and collectors, who add inscriptions and seals. The work is always transforming, and the more famous it is the more it
transforms. It would be hard for a Westerner to imagine the Mona Lisa with hundreds of years’ worth of inscriptions and seals, or to
conceive of it as still changing and transforming.
The Ise Grand Shrine is a Shinto temple in the city of Ise, Mie Prefecture in Japan. It dates to 4 BCE and is dedicated to the Sun
Goddess Amaterasu. For the Western visitor, a particular detail makes the shrine unusual: it is torn down and rebuilt every 20 years.
If the Colosseum in Rome were to be torn down and rebuilt (in its original splendor) every twenty years, it would somehow not be
the Colosseum for the Western visitor. It would be more like something one might find in Disneyland or Las Vegas, certainly not
a national treasure as it is in Italy.
In China the term shanzhai is a neologism that describes a “fake.” Shanzhai cell phones may be sold under the brand Nokir or
Samsing (rather than Nokia or Samsung), sports equipment may be sold with the name Adidos. They are considered to be just as
gooddand at times even betterdthen the “originals,” and may even contain notable improvements. There are shanzhai versions of
Harry Potter stories (Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll), with Chinese characters featuring the evil Yandomort. Shanzhai iPhones are
sold as iPncne, which looks like faded lettering. These items are said not to be inferior to the “original,” and in fact are celebrated for
their play on the “originals.” In the West, the Harry Potter story would be considered fan fiction, but Chinese culture does not have
the same worship for the original, and may be interpreted as simple plagiarism, deception, and copyright infringement (Han, 2017).
The moral and interpersonal dimensions are of much great importance in the Eastern view of creativity. The view of creativity is
much broader and takes into account social and cultural contexts, focusing on appropriateness in ways that reflect a culture that
not individualistic (Niu and Sternberg, 2006).
Attitudes Towards Diversity
While certain individuals are open and indeed fascinated by diversity, others tend to fear and reject it. One of the terms that is most
closely associated with diversity is prejudice. Extensive research on the psychology of prejudice, racism, and authoritarianism has
presented a rich and disturbing picture. Writing in the classic The Authoritarian Personality, Elke Frenkel-Brunswik (Adornp et al.,
1950) compared findings on individuals who were prejudiced with those who were not. She stated that it is perhaps mainly the
readiness to include, accept, and even love differences and diversities, as contrasted with the need to set off clear demarcation lines
and to ascertain superiorities and inferiorities, which remains as the most basic distinguishing criterion of the two opposite patterns
(pp.485–486).
In other words, when confronted with differences and diversities Authoritarian individuals feel the need to erect walls, metaphorical as well as literal, and establish who is on top, as opposed to successfully integrating differences, as we saw in the example
of jazz musicians.
Frenkel-Brunswik articulated a central difference between prejudiced and non-prejudiced, but also between authoritarian and
creative persons. It reflects two different ways of being in the world, and certainly two radically different relationships to diversity.
Based on extensive research from political and social psychology as well as creativity research, there is a profile of authoritarian individuals who are closed-minded, intolerant of ambiguity, who think in rigid categories and dichotomies, and approach diversity and
complex situation with quite relentless and unrealistic simplicity, focusing above all on establishing who is strong and who is weak,
who is superior and who is inferior (Montuori, 2019).
Followers of authoritarian leaders crave cognitive closure, meaning that they want a clear and certain answerdany answerd
when faced with complex phenomena. When faced with phenomena that are diverse, different, and ambiguous, they want clarity
and certainty. They stick with a fixed view and are prone to overgeneralize and stereotype. The world is seen dualistically, in terms of
black and white. Solutions are arrived at as soon as possible, in order to avoid ambiguous and unstructured situations that can lead
to anxiety, discomfort, and fear. Diversity, or a plurality of perspectives, is viewed as a problem be resolved: there is only one right
way, one source of authority, and any other perspectives are not only wrong, but in all likelihood bad and threatening.
Milton Rokeach’s concept of dogmatism, which he felt represented a generalized authoritarianism better than the original 1950s
study, showed that shared belief is a more important factor in social discrimination than belonging to a shared ethnic or racial
group. Dogmatic persons cannot tolerate the coexistence of different belief systems, resist changing beliefs even when faced with
information that invalidates them, and appeal to authority to support beliefs (Rokeach, 1954). The increasing complexity of diverse
perspective stresses the ability to integrate phenomena, and one way to deal with that is to inhibit the emergence of the higher level
of complexity, by not allowing them into consciousness. These are characteristics of prejudiced, authoritarian individuals. They are
low on integrative complexity, less curious, and seek to eliminate diversity.
Diversity
373
In his classic on the psychology of prejudice Gordon Allport argued that generalizations are a natural way to simplify a complex
world. The key difference between the normal use of generalizations and prejudice is that prejudiced persons do not change their
minds when confronted with information that disproves their beliefs. The person who is not prejudiced remains open to the possibility of change, whereas the prejudiced person does not.
At the other end of the psychological spectrum one finds individuals who are high on integrative complexity, open to experience,
tolerant of ambiguity, have independence of judgment and complexity of outlook. As Frenkel-Brunswik put it, they include, accept,
and even love differences and diversities. These are creative individuals, who also tend to be more cosmopolitan and less ethnocentric, curious about difference and diversity, more interested in other cultures and a multiplicity of perspectives. They view diversity
and multiple perspectives as a source of creativity, rather than as a threat, and are open to changing their minds.
Particularly relevant for this discussion of diversity is Integrative Complexity, which addresses the complexity of information
processing and decision making (Tuckman, 1966). Integrative complexity reflects the degree of differentiation and integration of
multiple perspectives. Individuals who are low on integrative complexity see the world in black and white terms, avoid ambiguity
and multiple possibilities. They stick with a fixed view, overgeneralize, and stereotype. Stereotypes simplify the complexity of the
world. They place large numbers of people in a category and avoid the ambiguity of having to navigate the unknown and learning
about a specific person, for example. Learning about a person may bring the knowledge that they do not conform to a preestablished, stereotyped view of the category of people they belong to, and this is something to be avoided because it might challenge deep-seated beliefs and ways of ordering and evaluating the world. Individuals with high integrative complexity perceive
a diverse world with many alternatives. They view the world in a flexible and complex way and can respond in appropriate and
novel ways. There is a strong positive relationship between high integrative complexity and creativity.
A further diversity-related contrast between authoritarian and creative individuals pertains to gender. Authoritarians often have
very rigidly polarized conceptions of masculine and feminine roles. They can be described as oppositional identities. A man is a man
to the extent that he does not engage in behaviors or express feelings that are associated with women, and vice versa. Authoritarian
individuals have a strong focus on boundaries and reject ambiguitydas Frenke-Brunswik put it, the need to set off clear demarcation
lines and to ascertain superiorities and inferioritiesdand as a result, anything that creates ambiguity in gender role and sexual identity is rejected outright.
In creative persons we find the opposite is true: The personality characteristics historically associated with men and women are
not nearly as strong in creative people. Creative women, for instance, have been found to have fewer traditionally feminine interests,
and more generally Barron (1972) wrote that “sex-specific interests and traits that are descriptive of men and women in general seem
to break down when we examine creative people” (p.33). The authors of the classic authoritarian personality research found that
whether one accepts tendencies of the opposite sex in oneself or not was an issue of great importance because these attitudes are
generalized and projected into the social sphere. This is seen in the way that in authoritarian or religious fundamentalist regimes and
communities gender roles are immediately differentiated (in terms of superiority/inferiority) very clearly, whether in Nazi Germany
or Iran after the revolution. There is a rigidity in roles that reflects the overall rigidity found in authoritarian individuals, compared
to the greater openness and flexibility of creative individuals.
Travel and Culture: Diversifying the Mind
Individuals who are exposed to a wide variety of perspectives are more likely to realize the arbitrary nature of any particular cultural norms and values,
whether intellectual or aesthetic, and thereby impose fewer restrictions on the scope of their creative imagination (Simonton, 1997, p.92, p.92)
It is said that travel broadens the mind, and multicultural experiences can in fact enhance creativity (Leung et al., 2008). But this
doesn’t mean that every brief holiday on a foreign beach necessarily increases creativity. A deep immersion in a different culture
combined with reflection on the experience can make the difference. Bicultural individuals who have experienced and internalized
two (or more) cultures, have greater ideational fluency and tend to be more creative, and there is a proportionally large number of
first and second-generation immigrants among eminent artists, inventors, and scientists. Exposure to another culture is a way of
diversifying. Exposure to often radically different cultural norms and values can lead to an understanding of the extent to which
these norms and values, whether political, cultural, intellectual, or aesthetic, are not absolute, but rather human creations. As a result
of this exposure the world is seen as less fixed, more fluid and open. These multicultural experiences show that was thought to be
fixed and given, or “just the way things are,” is not always the case. On a very basic level this offers more choices, greater differentiation, and the ability to see the world from more than one perspective. This in turn allows for more and different connections
between disparate elements, and fosters creativity.
Individuals who have essentialist views of racial groups believe that there are fixed underlying racial essences. They see all individuals that they identify as belonging to a specific race as having the same fundamental characteristics. Others believe racial categories are socially constructed, in which case the differences ascribed to races are the result of historical events that emerged over
time and were influenced by cultural and political perspectives, as well as the science of the day. The belief in racial essences leads
to more use of stereotypes. Inferences are made about a person on the basis of one distinctive trait such as skin color or gender.
Essentialism induces closed-mindedness and reduces domain-general creativity (Tadmor et al., 2013).
374
Diversity
Closed-mindedness involves the desire for certain knowledge, as soon as possible, and to maintain it as long as possible (Kruglanski, 2013). Closed-mindedness is clearly hostile to diversity and creativity, because creativity requires what the poet John Keats
called negative capability. This involves being able to stay with intellectual confusion and uncertainty and not wanting certainty as
soon as possible. Wanting to maintain one’s certainty as long as possible also points to remaining closed to the possibility of
revising one’s knowledge in the fact of contrasting information.
One illustrative and dramatic event in which fixed views about norms, values, and everyday habitual practices can be loosened is
culture shock. Culture shock is a phenomenon widely considered to be an unpleasant side-effect of sojourns in other cultures.
Whether traveling for business or pleasure culture shock was certain to ruin the trip. Nevertheless it has been argued that the experience can shed some light on what can happen in cross-cultural experiences, and that culture shock can lead to a better understanding of one’s identity, to cognitive and personal growth, and that creativity plays a role in the process (Montuori and
Fahim, 2004). Culture shock involves the experience of a gradual accumulation of events that shake up what is considered normal.
As a result, there is a loss in self-efficacy with a breakdown in habitual behaviors and ways of making sense of the world. The term
culture shock can be misleading because it gives the impression that it may involve one major shocking event, when in fact it is the
gradual accumulation of a series of small events that makes people feel they have lost their grip on life. It is when people are
suddenly confronted with an inability to deal with the things they take completely for granted in their own culture, and the number
of these breakdowns steadily mounts, then culture shock sets in.
Culture shock is an extreme example of a process that leads to an awareness that very different realities exist to the ones people
take for granted and are accustomed to. Things that remain unquestioned in one’s own culture, activities in which it is possible to
engage in habitual and unreflective behavior, turn out to be quite different in other cultures. Breakdowns occur in our habitual
patterns of thinking and doing, and these breakdowns offer people an opportunity to learn about themselves and their own culture,
as well as the new culture they are visiting.
This process highlights how cultures are in fact largely human creations. One of the most important insights that can come about
as a result of immersion in other cultures is a relativizing of one’s own culture and one’s own experience. Experiencing diversity that
challenges expectations encourages greater tolerance, creativity, and benefits intergroup relations. Multicultural experiences, and
more dramatically, culture shock, are intense diversifying experiences, unusual and unexpected the events that violate our cognitive
schemas and can promote cognitive flexibility.
Creative individuals exhibit more openness for experience, and so actively seek out other perspectives. Individuals who are lower
on integrative complexity reject the multiplicity of perspectives by placing them in a hierarchy, whereby perspectives other than
theirs are viewed as inferior. Multicultural experience reduces the need for cognitive closure and can “unfreeze” bias toward outgroups. This is attenuated by environments that strongly evoke the need for cognitive closure with an existential threat or when
for some reason individuals are highly motivated to have definite knowledge. A way to heighten ear of difference and diversity
and keep out-group bias frozen, therefore, is for authoritarian leaders to use propaganda to promote the existence of an existential
threat coupled with a great deal of social insecurity (See Travel).
Diversity and Inclusion in Creativity Research
Creativity research has historically not drawn on a very diverse sample of the population, and for the first 40 years after J.P. Guilford’s presidential address that kick-started research in the psychology of creativity, creativity researchers themselves were also
almost entirely white, mostly American men, who researched other white men who had been identified as creative. It is also the
case that most of the research in the psychology of creativity was conducted in the United States and focused on finding and
studying exceptional individuals in specific elite domains in the arts and sciences.
The creators and thinkers featured in two classic edited books with leading creative figures as well as creativity researchers, Brewster Ghiselin’s The Creative Process, and The Creativity Question by Rothenberg and Hausman, are almost entirely male and completely
white. Historically in Europe and the United States individuals considered eminent creatives such as Nobel-prize winners, and great
composers, artists, and novelists, were almost entirely men. Women have received far less attention than men in creativity research,
and there is relatively little research on creative people of color. The mythology of genius, which dates back to Romanticism and has
remained quite pervasive into the 21st century, included the notion that genius would overcome all obstacles (Montuori and Purser,
1995). This implied that social factors are not relevant and do not get in the way of the real genius, who will be recognized no matter
what the circumstances. Consequently, if people of color and women did not become eminent creatives it must have been because
they were not creatively brilliant enough, not because they were not given the opportunity to participate in the very domains where
one could be recognized as a genius. Any explanation for their absence could be sought “inside” them, in their personality, cognitive
style, motivation, or perhaps the nature of the “female brain,” or the “race.”
Anne Roe was the one of the first women to engage in systematic creativity research, at a time when there were few women
researchers. Her research on eminent scientists was first published in 1953. It is telling that when she received tenure at Harvard
in 1963, she was only the ninth woman to become a tenured faculty member, and the first woman to receive tenure in the Harvard
School of Education. This should put the paucity of women in Ghiselin’s book, which was published in 1954, somewhat in perspective, and also point to the slow but significant changes.
Barron’s research on student artists at the San Francisco Art Institute already pointed to some interesting differences in the ways
men and women viewed themselves as artists (Barron, 1972). The men stated that art was their whole life and that they could not
Diversity
375
conceive of being anything other than artists. The women had a broader, more diverse view of themselves, putting friendship and
family as equally important in their lives. The stereotypical image of the artist would suggest that compared to the women who
appeared less fully committed, the men with their explicit passion, focus, and commitment would be the better artists. But
when the work was presented to judges anonymously the women’s work was judged to be equal in quality to the work of the
men. This clearly reflects how some of the cultural assumptions and myths about creativity and the creative process are products
of a particular time and place. They may not have directly affected the creativity of the women at the San Francisco Art Institute,
but there is no doubt that cultural assumptions about the who, how, where and when of creativity have been a serious impediment
for women.
Ravenna Helson argued that in order to understand the creativity of women a different approach to research was needed, one
that focused more on the social world, not least because society historically actively prevented women from participating in
domains such as science and the arts where one could achieve eminence. Her proposal, more recently embraced by researchers
with an interest in social creativity and the socio-cultural approach, should also be applied to the development of a better understanding of traditionally under-represented groups in creativity research.
The focus of much creativity research has historically been on individual creativity (novelists, composers, individual scientists,
the “lone genius”) and not on the performing arts. This has meant that in the United States until recently there has been little
research on creative groups and more broadly on creative interactions. The contribution of African-Americans to America’s preeminent native art form, jazz, has gone largely unaddressed in the research. Eminent African-American creators have been profiled
and studied but not in what is traditionally viewed as creativity research. Creativity research has found that there are few differences
in creativity between African Americans and European Americans, and they have been found to tend to favor African Americans
(Kaufman, 2006). Interestingly, African Americans were less likely to fall prone to gender stereotypes in creativity. In addition,
African Americans and Native Americans tend to rate themselves as more creative than other ethnicities.
The historic absence of women and people of color in lists of eminent creatives is clearly attributable to social conditions that
simply did not allow them access to the domains where it was possible to become an eminent creative. No representation without
participation. As more women and people of color are participating in the rarefied domains in science, business, and the arts, were
one can get recognition for outstanding contributions, they are now appearing in lists of eminent creatives. Nevertheless, there are
still domains where women and people of color are conspicuous by their absence, and where they are still excluded in subtle and
not-so-subtle ways. Minority students continue to be under-represented in programs for gifted students. Identifying these gifted
students becomes a vital task, but the way they are identified is through standardized tests which are known to be problematic, since
there are significant differences in aptitude and ability between ethnic groups and critics have also stressed how cultural differences
make the tests less applicable. In order to do justice to the complexity of diversity, creativity research will also have to question and
diversify its own fundamental assumptions and research methods.
Conclusion
The relationship between creativity and diversity is a fascinating one and a timely subject for research. There are individuals who are
not open to diversity and feel threatened by it, as history, current events, and extensive research on all forms of prejudice shows.
Research suggests that individuals who are more open to embracing diversity are also more creative, and that experiences of cultural
diversity can promote creativity.
The relationship between creativity and diversity suggests a wealth of possible research opportunities. Topics include the differences between creative and prejudiced individuals, what makes individuals more open to diversity, how to educate for openness to
diversity, the study of populations who have been under-represented in creativity research, what makes diverse groups, organizations, cities, and cultures creative, how different cultures develop different understandings of creativity, and more. This research
will need to address a lot of interconnected phenomena and levels of analysis. As it will cross a wide range of disciplines, it will
by necessity have to be inter- or transdisciplinary, and should encourage creativity researchers to collaborate with colleagues in disciplines where some of the above questions have been addressed already, albeit usually without drawing on the extensive research on
the psychology of creativity. Not surprisingly, diversifying creativity research raises a lot of fundamental questions, as any crosscultural experience raises questions about one’s own culture. The definition of concepts like creativity, originality, innovation,
and social creativity, will be contrasted with other views, and it is to be hoped that creativity researchers, an increasingly diverse
group, will engage these possibilities with alacrity.
References
Adornp, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Sanford, N., 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Row, New York.
Barron, F., 1972. Artists in the Making. Academic, New York.
Belbin, R.M., 2012. Team Roles at Work. Routledge, London.
Davies, K., Tropp, L.R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T.F., Wright, S.C., 2011. Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 15 (4),
332–351.
Gioia, T., 2019. Music: A Subversive History. Basic Books, New York.
Han, B.-C., 2017. Shanzhai: Deconstruction in Chinese. The MIT Press, Boston, MA.
376
Diversity
Janis, I.L., 1983. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, second ed. Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., Kelly, E., 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71 (4), 589–617.
Kaufman, J.C., 2006. Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20, 1065–1082.
Kruglanski, A.W., 2013. The Psychology of Closed Mindedness. Psychology Press, New York.
Leung, A.K., Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D., Chiu, C., 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity. The when and how. Am. Psychol. 63 (3), 169–181.
Montuori, A., 2019. Authoritarianism and creativity: else Frenkel-Brunswik and the authoritarian personality. In: Glaveanu, V. (Ed.), The Creativity Reader. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 517–530.
Montuori, A., Fahim, U., 2004. Cross-cultural encounter as an opportunity for personal growth. J. Humanist. Psychol. 44 (2), 243–265.
Montuori, A., Purser, R., 1995. Deconstructing the lone genius myth: towards a contextual view of creativity. J. Humanist. Psychol. 35 (3), 69–112.
Montuori, A., Stephenson, H., 2010. Creativity, culture contact, and diversity. World Futur. J. Gen. Evol. 66 (3), 266–285.
Nandy, A., 2002. Time Warps: Silent and Evasive Pasts in Indian Politics and Religion. Rutgers University Press.
Nemeth, C., 2018. In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business, first ed. ed. Basic Books, New York.
Niu, W., Sternberg, R.J., 2006. The philosophical roots of Western and Eastern conceptions of creativity. J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 26 (1–2), 18–38.
Page, S.E., 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Plaut, V.C., Thomas, K.M., Hurd, K., Romano, C.A., 2018. Do color blindness and multiculturalism remedy or foster discrimination and racism? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27 (3),
200–206.
Rokeach, M., 1954. The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychol. Rev. 61 (3), 194–204.
Sawyer, K., 2006. Group creativity: musical performance and collaboration. Psychol. Music 34 (2), 148–165.
Simonton, D.K., 1997. Foreign influence and national achievement: the impact of open milieus on Japanese civilization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72 (1), 86–94.
Simonton, D.K., 2003. Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations. In: Paulus, P.B., Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 304–325.
Tadmor, C.T., Chao, M.M., Hong, Y.-y., Polzer, J.T., 2013. Not just for stereotyping anymore: racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychol. Sci. 24 (1), 99–105.
Tu, W.-M., 2007. Creativity: a Confucian view. DAO 6 (2), 115–124.
Tuckman, B.W., 1966. Integrative complexity: its measurement and relation to creativity. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 26 (2), 369–382.
Zachary, G.P., 2003. The Diversity Advantage: Multicultural Identity in a World Economy. Basic Books, New York.