Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:59:23.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending climato-economic theory: When, how, and why it explains differences in nations' creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2013

Maciej Karwowski  and
Izabela Lebuda
Maciej Karwowski
Affiliation:
Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, 02353 Warsaw, Poland. [email protected]@gmail.comwww.creativeeducationlab.edu.pl/lebuda.php
Izabela Lebuda
Affiliation:
Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, 02353 Warsaw, Poland. [email protected]@gmail.comwww.creativeeducationlab.edu.pl/lebuda.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The climato-economic theory postulates mechanisms of threat and challenge to explain differences between countries. Interestingly, both of these mechanisms are often considered to be components of the models of organizational climate for creativity. We show that among rich countries, climatic demands are related to creative achievement in a reversed-U manner, whereas the relationship is linear among poor countries.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 493 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baer, M. & Oldham, G. R. (2006) The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91:963–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutta, S. ed. (2012) The global innovation index 2012. Stronger innovation linkages for global growth. INSEAD.Google Scholar
Ekvall, G. (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 5:105–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida, R. (2002b) The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Perseus Book Group.Google Scholar
Heinzen, T. E. (1994) Situational affect: Proactive and reactive creativity. In: Creativity and affect, ed. Shaw, M. P. & Runco, M. A., pp. 127–46. Ablex.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E. & Mumford, M. D. (2007) Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 19:69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. (2000) Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington Quarterly 23:215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karwowski, M. (2011) Teachers' personality and perception of the climate for creativity in a school. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving 21:37–52.Google Scholar
Litwin, G. & Stringer, R. (1968) Motivation and organizational climate. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N. (1988) The possibility of invention. In: The nature of creativity, ed. Sternberg, R. J., pp. 362–85. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubenson, D. L. & Runco, M. A. (1992) The psycho-economic approach to creativity. New Ideas in Psychology 10:131–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1990) Political pathology and societal creativity. Creativity Research Journal 3:85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar