Creativity is a versatile construct perceived as a syndrome or complex (Runco, Reference Runco2014). This phenomenon is studied from the perspective of a creative person, a creative process, a creative perception, a product of creative activity, environment or place in which creative activity occurs, persuasion of others in plausibility of creative outcome, and potential to engage in creative activity (Kharkhurin & Charkhabi, Reference Kharkhurin and Charkhabi2021; Rhodes, Reference Rhodes1961; Runco, Reference Runco2003; Simonton, Reference Simonton, Runco and Albert1990). An individual's creativity was found to be prompted by a large variety of factors such as education, expertise, motivation, attitudes, personality traits, personal experience, and socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions.
About a decade ago, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2008) identified one more trigger for one's creative potential – namely, multilingual practice. Reviving scarce empirical evidence on the relationship between these phenomena (overview in Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012; Ricciardelli, Reference Ricciardelli1992b), he proposed a Multilingual Creative Cognition framework (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin and Jones2015) to study the link between multilingualism and creativity. Over the last five years this relationship received substantial attention in the academic community (e.g., Fürst & Grin, Reference Fürst and Grin2018; Piccardo, Reference Piccardo2017; Storme et al., Reference Storme, Çelik, Camargo, Forthmann, Holling and Lubart2017). Recent empirical findings provided support for a positive effect of bi-/multilingualism on creative cognition (see Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin, Altarriba and Heredia2018; van Dijk, Kroesbergen, Blom, & Leseman, Reference van Dijk, Kroesbergen, Blom and Leseman2018, for an overview).
However, this approach appears to take a rather narrow perspective on both multilingualism and creativity. This framework was developed within the traditional views of bilingualism and creative cognition respectively, and focused primarily on the cognitive mechanisms underlying creative capacity, and on the way the functioning of these mechanisms could benefit from an individual's linguistic competencies. At the same time, scholarly reflection on the learning and use of multiple languages and their implications has introduced a broader perspective with work in bi-/multilingualism (e.g., Cenoz, Reference Cenoz2013; Herdina & Jessner, Reference Herdina and Jessner2002; Hornberger, Reference Hornberger2002) and especially plurilingualism (e.g., Coste, Moore, & Zarate, Reference Coste, Moore and Zarate1997/2009; Lüdi & Py, Reference Lüdi and Py2009; Piccardo, Reference Piccardo, Trifonas and Aravossitas2018). Similarly, reflection on creativity has expanded towards a broader and more articulated conceptualization, with several models being developed that all stress the complex and multidimensional nature of creativity (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi and Simonton2014; Glăveanu, Reference Glăveanu2013; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2014; Lubart & Guignard, Reference Lubart and Guignard2004).
Both shifts paved the way to a reconsideration of the relationship between linguistic and cultural diversity on one side and creativity on the other. Hence, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021) proposed a new framework for research in multilingual and creative practices, Plurilingual Creativity. The present study opens a project aiming at exploring the plurilingual creativity approach empirically.
The construct of plurilingual creativity, as becomes evident from its name, rests on two pillars, plurilingualism and creativity. In the following sections, we elaborate on them.
Theoretical construct
Plurilingualism
Plurilingualism refers to an individual's practice with more than one language. However, there is an important difference between plurilingualism and related paradigms such as bilingualism and multilingualism. In the classic bi-/multilingual paradigm, languages are perceived as co-existing knowledge systems, which are utilized separately. This approach could be ascribed to a so-called ‘monolingual’ perspective (Gogolin, Reference Gogolin1994, Reference Gogolin2002), in which the second language (L2) users were considered from the perspective of the first language (L1) users. Second, third etc. language aptitudes were seen as supplements to L1 competence. As a result, studies in bi-/multilingualism have focused primarily on the psycholinguistic aspects of the contact of the language systems concerned. Also, these language systems were, in general, viewed as static and complete instead of dynamic and evolving.
Over the last three decades, there has been a steady move away from the classic separatist bi-/multilingual view, with a growing focus on interdependence of languages in bilinguals (Cummins & Gulutsan, Reference Cummins, Gulutsan and Carey1974) and the adoption of linguistic diversity as a resource rather than as a problem (Sánchez-Ruiz, Reference Sánchez-Ruiz, Editors-in-Chief: Mark and Steven2011). Recently, the field of applied linguistics moved towards a more holistic understanding (e.g., Cenoz, Reference Cenoz2013; Conteh & Meier, Reference Conteh and Meier2014; Cook & Wei, Reference Cook and Wei2016). On the crest of this wave, the concept of plurilingualism has been introduced to help differentiate an additive view of languages, especially at the societal level (to be referred to as multilingualism) from a holistic one which considers languages as composing a single dynamic language repertoire (to be referred to as plurilingualism). In the plurilingualism paradigm, languages are viewed as complex adaptive systems evolving through situated practices (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, Reference Larsen-Freeman and Anderson2011; Larsen-Freeman & Todeva, Reference Larsen-Freeman and Todeva2021).
Plurilingual people are not only those who are proficient users in all their languages. They are also those who actively use, to varying degrees of success, more than one language, even if they have not achieved a high level of proficiency in all of them. For example, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2018), plurilinguals have an ability to speak in one language while understanding another, switch between languages when appropriate, and serve as a mediator between individuals who do not speak a common language. An ability to speak multiple languages as well as the understanding of different sociocultural and emotional contexts in which these languages are acquired improves an individual's practical communicative skills and relationship with languages. These skills contribute to plurilinguals’ capacity to deal with delicate culturally related situations (Council of Europe, 2018; Piccardo, Reference Piccardo, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021).
Thus, by introducing the plurilingualism paradigm we shift the focus from the languages to the agency of the individual in the interaction of languages (Coste et al., Reference Coste, Moore and Zarate1997/2009; Council of Europe, 2018; Lüdi, Reference Lüdi, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021; Marshall, Reference Marshall, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021). We consider factors in an individual's development that go beyond linguistic capacities per se. Indeed, studies in sociolinguistics and language teaching consider the phenomenon of acquisition and use of multiple languages in relation to personality traits (e.g., Zafar & Meenakshi, Reference Zafar and Meenakshi2012), emotional states (e.g., Council of Europe, 2018), sociocultural context (e.g., Pazyura, Reference Pazyura2016), economic situation (e.g., Young-Scholten, Reference Young-Scholten2013) and education (e.g., Lier, Reference Lier2004, Reference Lier2007). These factors in turn are proposed to influence, among others, an individual's creative capacity.
Creativity
As mentioned above, in psychometric tradition, creativity is viewed from a perspective of creative cognition. The conceptual framework of creative cognition rests on two major assumptions. First, creative capacity is perceived as an ability to initiate multiple cycles of divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, Reference Guilford1967). The fundamental difference between convergent and divergent thinking is that the former is a conscious attention-demanding process, whereas the latter occurs in the unconscious mind, where attention is defocused, and thought is associative. Convergent thinking seeks one correct answer to the question, or one solution to a problem which is considered to require a single answer or solution. On the other hand, divergent thinking concentrates on searching for information and generation of many novel alternative solutions to a problem that could be tackled in many ways. According to Guilford, there are four main characteristics of divergent thinking: fluency (the ability to rapidly generate many ideas or solutions to a problem), flexibility (the capacity to simultaneously consider many different ways to solve a problem), elaboration (the ability to think through the details of an idea and carry it out), and originality (the tendency to produce unique ideas). The solutions generated during divergent thinking are subsequently evaluated through convergent thinking, which narrows all possible alternatives down to a single, optimal solution. When both types of thinking are combined, it creates an active, attention-demanding process that facilitates the production of ideas that satisfy the defining characteristics of a creative product: novelty (i.e., original or unexpected) and utility (i.e., useful or meeting task constraints) (see Mayer, Reference Mayer, Runco and Pritzker1999, for an overview). Second, “ideas and tangible products that are novel and useful are assumed to emerge from the application of ordinary, fundamental cognitive processes to existing knowledge structures” (Ward, Reference Ward2007, p 28). One's creative capacity can be understood in terms of the use of specific processes, and the richness and flexibility of stored cognitive structures to which these processes are applied (Ward, Smith, & Vaid, Reference Ward, Smith and Vaid1997). Creative capacity therefore, is assumed as an essential property of normative human cognition (Ward, Smith, & Finke, Reference Ward, Smith, Finke and Sternberg1999), and increase in general cognitive functioning may facilitate an individual's creative abilities.
This perspective dominated research in creativity for many years. A large majority of scholars even believed that divergent thinking is a defining component of the creative process (e.g., Lubart, Reference Lubart2000). At the same time, creativity should be perceived as a complex construct. Several models recently developed in the field of creativity stress its multidimensional nature. For example, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2014) challenged the traditional two-criterion construct of creativity (novelty and utility) as being biased by a Western frame of thought. He proposed an alternative four-criterion construct, which in addition to novelty and utility considers two other characteristics typical for Eastern perception of creativity: aesthetics and authenticity. Glăveanu (Reference Glăveanu2013) suggested “using terms that explicitly endorse a systemic, contextual, and dynamic approach” (p. 69). His 5As framework perceives creativity from a perspective of actor, action, artifact, audience, and affordances. In a similar vein, Lubart and Guignard (Reference Lubart and Guignard2004) asserted that creativity depends on cognitive, conative, affective, and environmental factors. Drawing on this multivariate approach, they claimed that “creativity is partly a generalized ability, partly a set of domain-specific abilities, and partly a set of task-specific abilities” (p. 43). Csikszentmihalyi (Reference Csikszentmihalyi and Simonton2014) proposed the systems model of creativity, which has three defining aspects: domain (the cultural matrix of information exchange), person (people who contribute to the domain by means of introducing novel elements and modifications of the existing ones), and field (groups of individuals who make decisions regarding the need to accept the novel elements and changes in the domain). These models use different approaches to creativity and somewhat differ in its constituents. However, they all emphasize the multivariate nature of the construct.
Plurilingual Creativity
Taking all the reviewed research together, we see that the plurilingualism approach suggests that the experience with multiple languages goes beyond the mere interaction between language systems and includes several factors not directly related to psycholinguistic aspects per se. Seeing creativity as complex also suggests that the creativity construct should not be limited to its underlying cognitive functions and should include other factors. Therefore, Plurilingual Creativity broadens the scope of the investigation of the relationship between multilingual and creative practices to include such factors as personality traits, emotional states, sociocultural context, economic situation, and education.
The relationship between plurilingualism and creativity has been explicitly stressed by a few scholars. For example, Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (Reference Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou2009) asserted that plurilingual individuals tend to have better communicative sensitivity, metalinguistic awareness, and creativity. Furlong (Reference Furlong2009) presented an argument that creativity can be boosted in plurilinguals’ mind due to their heightened perception of the world. She concluded that, “given high level plurilinguals’ increased perceptual awareness, they are likely to gain new insights, create new analogies and experience creative moments in any domain where perception is at work” (p. 365). Similarly, Piccardo (Reference Piccardo2017) employed Dynamic System Theory and the theory of affordances to make a theoretical argument for possible synergies between plurilingualism and creativity. She also perceived both phenomena as complex systems and advocated for “the potential for individuals to embrace a holistic, complex view of languages and cultures and to experience empowerment in the process of perceiving and exploring linguistic and cultural diversity, hybridity and interconnections, thus discovering and liberating their full creative repertoire” (p. 1).
Empirical evidence
However, the empirical evidence for the relationship between these two phenomena comes only from the studies in the Multilingual Creative Cognition presented above. Most of these studies compared bilinguals and monolinguals and found greater performance of the former. Specifically, these studies demonstrated bilinguals’ advantages on divergent thinking traits such as fluency (e.g., Carringer, Reference Carringer1974; Hommel, Colzato, Fischer, & Christoffels, Reference Hommel, Colzato, Fischer and Christoffels2011; Jacobs & Pierce, Reference Jacobs and Pierce1966; Karapetsas & Andreou, Reference Karapetsas and Andreou1999; Ricciardelli, Reference Ricciardelli1992a), flexibility (e.g., Adi-Japha, Berberich-Artzi, & Libnawi, Reference Adi-Japha, Berberich-Artzi and Libnawi2010; Carringer, Reference Carringer1974; Konaka, Reference Konaka1997), elaboration (e.g., Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008; Srivastava & Khatoon, Reference Srivastava, Khatoon and Annamalai1980; Torrance, Gowan, Wu, & Aliotti, Reference Torrance, Gowan, Wu and Aliotti1970), originality (e.g., Cummins & Gulutsan, Reference Cummins, Gulutsan and Carey1974; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2009; Konaka, Reference Konaka1997; Okoh, Reference Okoh1980), insight problems (Cushen & Wiley, Reference Cushen and Wiley2011), and structured imagination tasks (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2009). A few studies compared bilinguals with different levels of language proficiency and different age of language acquisition. These studies revealed greater divergent thinking performance of participants with high proficiency in both languages as compared to their linguistically unbalanced counterparts (e.g., Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008, Reference Kharkhurin2009, Reference Kharkhurin2011; Lee & Kim, Reference Lee and Kim2011). Similarly, bilingual individuals who acquired L2 earlier obtained greater divergent thinking scores compared to their counterparts who acquired L2 later (e.g., Cushen & Wiley, Reference Cushen and Wiley2011; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008; Kostandyan & Ledovaya, Reference Kostandyan and Ledovaya2013).
We aim to expand this empirical evidence and investigate different plurilingual factors contributing to creative thinking.
Present study
In the present study, we expand Multilingual Creative Cognition framework by several critical considerations.
Language repertoire
First, traditional multilingual factors such as language proficiency and age of language acquisition were replaced by the notion of a language repertoire. The latter emphasizes the agency of a plurilingual speaker who has a collection of languages at his/her disposal. This person employs these languages to various degrees and can change their proficiency depending on the goals and circumstances of language use. The very notion of linguistic repertoire distinguishes the plurilingualism's holistic and dynamic view of an individual in the interaction of languages from the additive view of languages as accepted in the bi-/multilingualism approach.
Various scholars made attempts to treat language experience and processing as a multifaceted construct that is shaped by a number of factors such as age of acquisition, history of language acquisition, and context and frequency of language use (e.g., Gullifer et al., Reference Gullifer, Kousaie, Gilbert, Grant, Giroud, Coulter and Titone2021; Gullifer & Titone, Reference Gullifer and Titone2021; Titone & Tiv, Reference Titone and Tiv2022). For example, Gullifer and Titone (Reference Gullifer and Titone2020) introduced the concept of language entropy to reflect “individual differences in the social diversity of language use, including the interactional context of language usage” (p. 284). It is computed as a sum of the proportion a language is used in a particular context multiplied by the logarithmic function of this proportion, for all languages spoken by a language user.
Several studies of multilinguals’ personality traits used a total number of spoken languages as an assessment of participants’ experience with multiple languages (e.g., Dewaele & Stavans, Reference Dewaele and Stavans2012; Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, Reference Dewaele and van Oudenhoven2009). Dewaele and Wei (Reference Dewaele and Wei2013) complemented this score with the mean proficiency score calculated for all languages spoken by participants. Kharkhurin and Wei (Reference Kharkhurin and Wei2014) hinted at the possible effect of individuals’ habitual code-switching on their divergent thinking. Since the present study focuses on the ramifications of the language use for the cognitive functions underlying divergent thinking (see discussion above), we included habitual code-switching rate into our list of language related predictors. Thus, the construct of language repertoire includes three related factors: the total number of languages used by an individual, overall proficiency in these languages, and overall code-switching rate.
Multicultural experience
Second, more serious consideration was given to various factors related to plurilinguals’ experience with different cultural setting. A plausible contributor to plurilingual individuals’ creative thinking reflects the context of language acquisition and use. The studies in multilingual creative cognition generally disregarded the fact that most participants in the target samples experience and participate in more than one culture. These individuals are primarily immigrants, migrant workers, members of the minority groups, or foreign students exposed to different educational systems. They acquire each of their languages in the respective cultural environments where different cultural cues are available (Pavlenko, Reference Pavlenko2000). Therefore, in addition to acquiring several languages, they could also adopt a range of multicultural values and beliefs. Acculturation studies support this view by demonstrating that language acquisition is often accompanied by the adoption of the cultural values of the country in which this language is acquired (e.g., Birman, Trickett, & Vinokurov, Reference Birman, Trickett and Vinokurov2002).
On the other side, creativity research demonstrated that the specific social and cultural aspects of the environment can have a considerable influence on levels of creative potential, pace of creative development, and on how creativity is evaluated (e.g., Kharkhurin & Yagolkovskiy, Reference Kharkhurin and Yagolkovskiy2021; Lubart et al., Reference Lubart, Kharkhurin, Corazza, Besançon, Yagolkovskiy and Sak2022; McCarthy, Reference McCarthy2019; Shao, Zhang, Zhou, Gu, & Yuan, Reference Shao, Zhang, Zhou, Gu and Yuan2019; Tang et al., Reference Tang, Werner, Cao, Tumasjan, Shen, Shi and Spörrle2015). There is even a radical opinion that “no account of creativity can be satisfactory unless it is culture-inclusive” (Glăveanu, Reference Glăveanu2010, p. 151). Sociocultural values and norms determine and shape the concept of creativity, which in turn may influence the way creative potential is understood and developed.
Thus, if plurilingual individuals acquire their languages in different countries, they are most likely to have been exposed to different sociocultural environments. Individuals’ experience with multiple sociocultural settings may encourage their creative behavior.
This argument finds support in cross-cultural research demonstrating that the effect of multilingualism on creative performance is often confounded with the effect of multiculturalism (see Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012, for a discussion). For example, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2008) found that the length of residence in the new cultural environment related to Russian–English bilingual college students’ fluency, flexibility, and elaboration above and beyond the effect of bilingualism. Similar findings were obtained by Maddux and Galinsky (Reference Maddux and Galinsky2009) who found that the amount of time MBA students from 40 different nations had lived abroad significantly predicted creative solutions of the Duncker's (Reference Duncker1945) candle-mounting problem (assessing the impact of functional fixedness on an individual's problem solving capabilities) when the effect of bilingualism was controlled.
Intercultural competence
Third, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021) claimed that plurilinguals’ multicultural experience (together with emotional experience, which we leave beyond the scope of this article) contributes to their intercultural competence, which in turn facilitates creative thinking. There are many different often contradicting models of intercultural competence (e.g., Byram, Reference Byram1997; Deardorff, Reference Deardorff2009; see also Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios, & Liu, Reference Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios and Liu2016, for an overview). These contradictions reflect varying disciplinary origins and domain specificity of these models. For example, intercultural competence models grounded in personality traditions focus on intercultural traits (e.g., van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, Reference van der Zee and van Oudenhoven2000), whereas those drawing on the intelligence literature focus on intercultural capabilities (e.g., Earley & Ang, Reference Earley and Ang2003). Some other models focus on attitudes and worldviews (e.g., Bennett, Reference Bennett and Paige1993). Moreover, many of these models are concerned with work competence (e.g., Sternberg, Reference Sternberg2005) and focus on the skills required for successful performance in a particular domain. The most promising approaches take multidisciplinary perspectives and thus embrace a wide variety of constructs (e.g., Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, Reference Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens and Oddou2010; Javidan & Teagarden, Reference Javidan and Teagarden2011; K. Leung, Ang, & Tan, Reference Leung, Ang and Tan2014). For example, K. Leung and his colleagues took an integrative approach that conceptualizes intercultural competence as a combination of intercultural traits, intercultural attitudes and worldviews, and intercultural capabilities. They emphasized the dynamic orientation of intercultural competence and proposed to consider how its effectiveness in predicting psychological, behavioral, and performance outcomes unfolds over time.
Based on this approach, Khukhlaev and his colleagues (Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2021) developed an integrative intercultural competence survey assessing an individual's ability to function effectively in the multicultural contexts. The scale consists of four dimensions: intercultural stability defined as an ability to engage in the intercultural communication; intercultural interest defined as expressing an interest in communicating with people from another culture and in their culture; lack of ethnocentrism defined as showing respect towards the representatives of another culture and accepting the features of cultural diversity; and management of intercultural interaction defined as a range of skills for comfortable intercultural communication process.
We believe that the implications of these attributes go far beyond the communication abilities per se. As such, they could affect an individual's creative capacities. There is no direct evidence of the contribution of intercultural competence to creative competence. However, we can infer it indirectly.
There is an opinion that the competence of intercultural stability allows an individual to communicate with the representatives of another culture in a stress-free manner (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2020). A number of studies demonstrated that the intercultural competence is associated with emotion regulation (e.g., Matsumoto et al., Reference Matsumoto, LeRoux, Ratzlaff, Tatani, Uchida, Kim and Araki2001), emotional stability (e.g., Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, Reference Bartel-Radic and Giannelloni2017; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, Reference van der Zee and van Oudenhoven2000), emotional resilience, optimism, non-stress tendency, and stress management (Bird et al., Reference Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens and Oddou2010). This means that the trait of intercultural stability could be related to resistance to stress. At the same time, the studies in creativity suggest that high level of stress resistance is associated with creativity since exposure to stress encourages persistence, which in turn leads to originality in thinking (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, Reference Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad2008; Ohly & Fritz, Reference Ohly and Fritz2010; Vartanian, Saint, Herz, & Suedfeld, Reference Vartanian, Saint, Herz and Suedfeld2020). Further, intercultural interest appears to be facilitated by intercultural sensitivity (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2020). The latter in turn is associated with openness to communication with the representatives of another culture; that is, openness to new experience (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, Reference van der Zee and van Oudenhoven2000). The research suggests that the openness is highly associated with creativity (e.g., Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, Reference Tan, Lau, Kung and Kailsan2019). In a similar manner, lack of ethnocentrism is argued to help overcome anxiety caused by misunderstandings in communication between people with different cultural backgrounds (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2020). Moreover, this trait is highly associated with openness discussed above. Hence, the desire and the positive attitude towards the communication with people from another culture decreases the level of anxiety and increases openness to the new experience (Stephan & Stephan, Reference Stephan and Stephan1992). This, in turn, enhances creativity (Tan et al., Reference Tan, Lau, Kung and Kailsan2019). Finally, well developed communication skills are at the core of management of intercultural interaction (Barrett, Reference Barrett2018; Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2020). These skills require flexibility in selecting appropriate approaches to people of another cultural background. Moreover, an ability to generate a multitude of approaches could be of a particular use since different cultures would require different approaches. As we discussed above, flexibility and fluency appear to be important constituents of divergent thinking (Guilford, Reference Guilford1967).
Creativity
Finally, although per earlier discussion the plurilingual creativity framework acknowledges the multidimensionality of the creativity construct, in the present study we decided to use the construct from multilingual creative cognition – namely, divergent thinking. There is a good reason to focus on this traditional assessment of creativity. Recall that the plurilingual creativity aims at drastically modifying all major constituents of the multilingual creative cognition. Traditional language related factors such as language proficiency and age of acquisition were complemented by language repertoire. The constructs of multicultural experience and intercultural competence were introduced. Hence, it seems to be prudent to take one step at a time and to explore the ramifications of these modifications for creativity as it was perceived in the old framework; that is, divergent thinking.
Hypotheses
Thus, we identified three plurilingual factors: language repertoire, multicultural experience, and intercultural competence. These factors are proposed to have an impact on divergent thinking. We advanced two blocks of hypotheses. One block is concerned with predictions of divergent thinking performance by each of three plurilingual factors. These predictions are constructed based on the literature reviewed above and suggesting that language and culture related factors have an impact on an individual's creative thinking. The first hypothesis posits that language repertoire predicts divergent thinking. The second hypothesis states that intercultural competence predicts divergent thinking. The third hypothesis proposes that multicultural experience predicts divergent thinking.
The other block of hypotheses deals with the interaction of language and culture related constituents of plurilingualism. The interactive effects of these factors can be inferred from the above mentioned cross-cultural research demonstrating that the effect of multilingualism on creative performance is often confounded with the effect of multiculturalism (see Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012, for a discussion). It is not language repertoire per se, but the interaction of both language and culture related factors that accompany plurilingual practice. Hence, plurilingualism is considered inseparable from pluriculturalism.
The interaction of linguistic and cultural competences was cultivated in Europe for at least the last two decades. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages stated that “plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (Council of Europe, 1996/2001, p. 168). As you can see, in the context of multilingual practice, they are considered as one competence, or at least as parts of one large interactive system.
Hence, the fourth hypothesis examines an interactive effect of language repertoire and intercultural competence on divergent thinking. The fifth hypothesis posits that there is an interactive effect of language repertoire and multicultural experience on divergent thinking.
Methods
Participants
Two hundred and sixty-one individuals (47 male and 214 female) aged between 17 and 66 (M = 27.64, SD = 11.98) participated in the study. They were recruited through social media adverts asking them to participate in a survey on language and creative practices. Most participants were residents of Russia (171) and Kazakhstan (60). All participants reported high proficiency in Russian (M = 4.51 out of 5, SD = 1.22, see description of the language assessment below). The survey was conducted in Russian.
All participants spoke at least one foreign language. 37.5% spoke one foreign language, 39.8% spoke two, 13.8% three; and 6.89% four. The average age of the first foreign language acquisition was 8.00 (SD = 3.68), the second 16.00 (SD = 8.66), the third 20.00 (SD = 9.83), the fourth 24.00 (SD = 11.37). They were exposed to the first foreign language on average for 20.00 years (SD = 11.37), to the second 13.00 (SD = 10.68), to the third 12.00 (SD = 9.09), and to the fourth 8.00 (SD = 6.11). They reported an average proficiency: in the first foreign language 3.71 (SD = 1.04), in the second 3.00 (SD = 1.11), in the third 2.88 (SD = 1.24) and in the fourth 2.98 (SD = 1.17). No personal data except about their age and gender was collected.
Procedure
The study was administered online on 1ka.si platform (https://www.1ka.si/). Participants received a 20-minute assessment battery preceded by the written informed consent form (approved by the HSE Ethics Committee). The form specified among other issues that the participants have the right to withdraw at any stage of the study and that they receive no reward for participating in the study. The battery consisted of demographics questionnaire, language assessment questionnaire, multilingual experience questionnaire, intercultural competence scale, and a test of divergent thinking.
Assessments
Language assessment
Participants’ linguistic background was assessed by abridged Russian version of the Multicultural and Multilingual Experience Questionnaire (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2017). They received a questionnaire that, among other issues, obtained data on participants’ place of origin and residence, languages they speak, and age of acquisition of these languages. The questionnaire also included Likert-type 5-point scales on which participants rated their abilities in reading, writing, speaking, and listening in their respective languages. In addition, participants received a Likert-type 7-point scale in which they indicated the rate of code-switching while communicating with people who speak the same languages.
Thus, we selected three indicators of language repertoire. The number of languages score was calculated as a count of all languages rated by participants. The language proficiency score for each language was calculated as a mean of self-rating scores for each of participants’ linguistic abilities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). The overall language proficiency score was calculated as a sum of language proficiency scores for each language. The code-switching score was obtained directly from the code-switching scale.
The language repertoire score was calculated using the following procedure. First, we used a series of regression analyses to see the extent our language related variables had a significant value in predicting divergent thinking components (see description of the divergent thinking assessment below). The analyses revealed that the number of languages and overall language proficiency, but not code-switching, statistically predicted originality. Second, according to these results, we built a composite score using the regression equation Y = 2.884 + .271 × X1 − .073 × X2, where X1 and X2 represent the number of languages and overall language proficiency, respectively.
Multicultural experience
Participants’ multicultural experience was assessed by the Multicultural Experience Questionnaire (Narvaez, Endicott, & Hill, Reference Narvaez, Endicott and Hill2010). We had two reasons to select this assessment tool. First, its scope of assessment goes beyond the experience in communication with the representatives of different countries. The term ‘culture’ in this questionnaire refers to the experience with different ethnic groups, immigrants, men, women, homosexuals, and the representatives of different religious and political backgrounds. Second, recall our earlier discussion that plurilingualism is attitudinal. Mere exposure to the representatives of other countries is not sufficient. Plurilingual individuals need to actively learn from this experience and acquire new skills. The Multicultural Experience Questionnaire accounts for this claim and measures both multicultural experience and multilingual attitudes.
This questionnaire was developed from a longer version (Endicott, Bock, & Narvaez, Reference Endicott, Bock and Narvaez2003), which consisted of 53 questions grouped as 4 subscales. Narvaez and Hill (Reference Narvaez and Hill2010) conducted two studies with it to find out which items should be deleted or adjusted. They came up with 16-item and 15-item scales and obtained high alpha values for both (.75 and .85, respectively). We used 15-item scale because its alpha value was greater. This version consists of 15 Likert-type 5-point scales, which form two subscales. The multicultural experience subscale represents the amount of multicultural experience a person has had. It assesses the experience with the representatives of another culture. The multicultural desire subscale represents the person's effort or desire to increase their multicultural experiences. This subscale assesses an individual's prospective to have experience with the representatives of another culture. The example of the item assessing multicultural experience is “At the moment I am in correspondence with people from other countries,” and the item assessing multicultural desire is “I want to be friends with people whose cultural/ethnic background is different from mine.”
The Russian version of the questionnaire was produced from the original English version using back-translation (Brislin, Reference Brislin1970).
Intercultural competence
Participants’ intercultural competence was assessed by the Integrative Intercultural Competence Survey (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2021). This survey was selected, because it is based on the integrative approach (K. Leung et al., Reference Leung, Ang and Tan2014), which per earlier discussion in contrast to many other models of intercultural competence takes multidisciplinary perspectives and thus embraces a wide variety of constructs related to intercultural traits, intercultural attitudes and worldviews, and intercultural capabilities. Moreover, this is virtually the only assessment tool of the intercultural competence available in Russian (the other one is the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale of Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, Rockstuhl, Tan and Koh2012 adapted to Russian by Soldatova, Chigarkova, & Rasskazova, Reference Soldatova, Chigarkova and Rasskazova2018).
The survey consists of 18 Likert-type 5-point scales measuring an individual's ability to function effectively in an intercultural communication context. The scale was developed in a study integrating 52 constructs from 14 methods, which intend to measure intercultural competence. The analysis of a sample of Russian speaking participants (N = 1024) distinguished four subscales: “Intercultural Stability (individual personality characteristics that allow a person to be resistant to stressful situations of intercultural communication), Intercultural Interest (desire to communicate with people from other cultures, interest in culture and cultural differences), Lack of Ethnocentrism (respect and acceptance of cultural diversity) and Management of Intercultural Interaction (wide range of communication skills, important for intercultural communication)” (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2021, p. 88). The example of the item assessing intercultural stability is “After interacting with people of a different culture, I feel completely overwhelmed;” the intercultural interest is “I like to communicate with people of other cultures;” lack of ethnocentrism is “I will not communicate with a person of a different culture if he acts on the basis of his cultural norms;” and management of intercultural interaction is “I am confident that I can work effectively with people from different cultures.”
The subscales had good internal consistency and invariance at the configural and scalar level (ΔCFI =.006 < .01), although some age related limitations were observed (ΔCFI for metric invariance =.02 which is more than .001). The subscales also demonstrated good external validity. They correlated with the Extended Cultural Intelligence Scale (alpha = .75, .79, .81, .77, respectively; all ps < .001), with indicators of adaptation of foreign students (alpha = .92, p < .001), emotional burnout (alpha = .73, p < .001), and self-efficacy among teachers working in a multicultural environment (alpha = .79, p < .001).
Divergent thinking
Participants’ divergent thinking was assessed by a modified version of Guilford's Unusual Uses Test. The test was adopted for Russian-speaking participants by Averina and Shcheblanova (Reference Averina and Shcheblanova1996). Participants were given 6 minutes to produce as many as possible different unusual uses of a wooden ruler. Their responses were evaluated along three divergent thinking traits: fluency (the number of uses of the wooden ruler), flexibility (the number of categories which the participant's ideas fall into), and originality (the frequency of occurrence of a participant's response in relation to the overall pull of responses produced by all participants).
The test demonstrated good reliability (Averina & Shcheblanova, Reference Averina and Shcheblanova1996). In this study, 100 participants from different age groups were given this test twice with an interval of two months. The results showed high test-retest correlation for fluency (r = .79, p < .005), flexibility (r = .61, p < .005), and originality (r =.73, p < .005). Moreover, the same participants received this test two years later. Although, in comparison with the previous testing results the correlation coefficients were lower, they were significant for fluency (r = .43, p < .005), flexibility (r = .48, p < .005), and originality (r = .53, p < .005).
The test used a three-stepwise categorization procedure adopted from the German version of the Unusual Uses test (Perleth, Sierwald, & Heller, Reference Perleth, Sierwald and Heller1993). The fluency score was calculated as a number of relevant ideas produced by a respondent (signs, abbreviations and contractions were counted as irrelevant responses). The flexibility score was calculated in accordance with the number of categories (specified by Averina & Shcheblanova, Reference Averina and Shcheblanova1996) of relevant ideas produced by the respondent. The originality score was calculated by comparing the respondent's ideas with the list of ideas generated by participants in Averina and Scheblanova's study. The score was given based on its frequency of occurrence in that list: low frequency means high originality score (more than 10% – score 1; 6–10% – score 2; 3–6% – score 3; 1–3% score – 4; less than 1% – score 5). The final originality score was calculated as a mean of originality scores for all responses.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the scales (means and standard deviations) and the Pearson correlations between the variables are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Correlation matrix between the research variables in the current study (n = 261)
Correlational analyses
As we can see in Table 1, the number of languages was significantly associated with overall proficiency (r = .863, p < .001) and code-switching (r = .261, p < .001). Overall proficiency was positively associated with code-switching (r = .339, p < .001).
The number of languages was significantly associated with intercultural stability (r = .138, p < .05), intercultural interest (r = .145, p < .05) and multicultural experience (r = .365, p < .001). Overall proficiency was positively associated with intercultural interest (r = .167, p < .05), multicultural experience (r = .448, p < .001) and multicultural desire (r = .144, p < .05). Code-switching was positively associated with intercultural interest (r = .135, p < .05), management of intercultural interaction (r = .176, p < .01), multicultural experience (r = .225, p < .001), and multicultural desire (r = .138, p < .05).
In addition, we found that intercultural stability was positively associated with originality (r = .127, p < .05). Management of intercultural interaction was related to all three components of divergent thinking: fluency (r = .148, p < .05), flexibility (r = .128, p < .05) and originality (r = .127, p < .05). Multicultural experience was positively associated with all three components of divergent thinking including fluency (r = .174, p < .01), flexibility (r = .188, p < .01) and originality (r = .129, p < .05), but multicultural desire did not have a relation with these components.
Language related variables predict divergent thinking
Further, we tested the first hypothesis on how language repertoire that may include number of languages, overall proficiency and code-switching rate may predict divergent thinking. Table 2 shows the results of linear regression analyses. According to this table, none of these three variables representing language repertoire predicted fluency and flexibility. At the same time, both the number of languages (β=.29, p < .05) and overall proficiency (β=-.27, p < .05) significantly predicted originality. Consequently, the language repertoire score that was constructed based on the number of languages and overall proficiency scores (see description in the Methods section) predicted originality as well (β=.166, p < .01). The composite score did not predict fluency and flexibility. Therefore, the hypothesis that language repertoire predicts divergent thinking was partially confirmed.
Table 2. Results of linear regression analysis between language repertoire constituents and components of divergent thinking (n = 261)
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, a) the language repertoire composite score is made based on number of languages and overall proficiency.
Culture related variables predict divergent thinking
Next, we tested the hypotheses about the prediction of divergent thinking by culture related variables. Table 3 presents the results of multiple regression analyses between predictors from Integrative Intercultural Competence Survey (intercultural competence, intercultural stability, intercultural interest, lack of ethnocentrism, and management of intercultural interaction) and Multicultural Experience Questionnaire (multicultural experience and multicultural desire) and divergent thinking components (fluency, flexibility, and originality) as dependent variables.
Table 3. Results of multiple regression analysis of culture related factors in predicting divergent thinking components (n = 261)
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
As the table shows, among intercultural competence components, management of intercultural interaction significantly predicted fluency (β=.165, p < .05) and marginally predicted flexibility (β=.140, p = .069) and originality (β =.145, p = .061); intercultural interest significantly predicted originality (β=-.167, p < .05); and intercultural stability marginally predicted originality (β=.126, p = .083). In addition, multicultural experience significantly predicted fluency (β=.168, p < .01) and flexibility (β=.188, p < .001). The results provided evidence for the second and third hypotheses. Therefore, the hypothesis that intercultural competence predicts divergent thinking and the hypothesis that multicultural experience predicts divergent thinking were partially confirmed.
The interaction between language and culture related variables
Finally, we tested the hypotheses about the interaction between language and culture related variables. To test the moderation hypotheses, a regression model according to Figure 1 was constructed. Model 1 of the Macro Process program (Hayes, Reference Hayes2012) was selected to investigate the effects of potential moderator in the association between various antecedents and outcomes. Following Probst, Barbaranelli, and Petitta (Reference Probst, Barbaranelli and Petitta2013), the standardized scores (z scores) were used to test the hypotheses.
Fig. 1. A conceptual model of the association between research variables
We found that the composite language repertoire score did not interact statistically with the culture related variables in predicting any of the divergent thinking components. However, we made one more step and tested this path for the constituents of the language repertoire – namely, the overall language proficiency and the number of languages. The former also showed no significant interaction with culture related variables, whereas the latter revealed some effects.
The results of moderation paths for the number of languages are displayed in Table 4. As the table shows, the interaction between management of intercultural interaction and number of languages significantly predicted fluency (β=-.11, p < .05). Following the recommendation of Dawson (Reference Dawson2014), the moderator was divided into low and high slopes based on the outcome of the Process program in which low and high values for quantitative moderators are mean and minus/plus one SD from the mean. The results showed that this interaction occurs in the low slope of the moderator (β=.28, p = .001), and the high slope of the moderator did not influence this association (β=.05, p = .463). The results of a moderation test for the low slope are presented in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Interaction effects of management of intercultural interaction × number of languages in predicting fluency
Table 4. Results of moderating role of number of languages on cultural factors – divergent thinking link using standardized coefficients (n = 261)
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
In addition, the interaction between management of intercultural interaction and number of languages marginally predicted flexibility (β=-.09, p = .08). The result was further investigated for low and high slopes of the moderator. As Figure 3 illustrates, this interaction occurs only for a low slope of the moderator (β=.24, p < .001) and a high slope did not influence the link between the management of intercultural interaction and flexibility (β=.04, p = .52). Hence, we found partial evidence for the fourth hypothesis that there is an interactive effect of language repertoire and intercultural competence on divergent thinking.
Fig. 3. Interaction effects of management of intercultural interaction × number of languages in predicting flexibility
Finally, the overall interaction between the multicultural experience and the number of languages did not predict flexibility or originality but considering the p-value of the two tested paths, we further tested the conditional effects using low and high slopes of the moderator. The results suggested that only a high slope of the moderator can moderate the link between multicultural experience and both flexibility (β=.20, p < .05) and originality (β=.24, p < .001). Figures 4 and 5 illustrate these findings. A low slope did not moderate this link for flexibility (β=.17, p = .069) and originality (β=.04, p = .601). Hence, we found partial evidence for the fifth hypothesis that there is an interactive effect of language repertoire and multicultural experience on divergent thinking.
Fig. 4. Interaction effects of multicultural experience × number of languages in predicting flexibility
Fig. 5. Interaction effects of multicultural experience × number of languages in predicting originality
Discussion
This study initiated a research project aiming to empirically test the Plurilingual Creativity framework. We investigated a contribution of language repertoire and various multicultural factors to divergent thinking. We found that language repertoire, intercultural competence, and multicultural experience had a predicting value for various divergent thinking components. These findings evidently provided support for prudence of expanding the framework of research in multilingual creativity to plurilingual perspective. Indeed, we demonstrated that the factors related to an individual's experience with multiple cultures complement the effect of experience with multiple languages.
Altogether, this study identified four plurilingual/pluricultural factors influencing divergent thinking: language repertoire, multicultural experience, management of intercultural interaction, and intercultural interest. Let us consider each of these factors individually.
Language repertoire
We found that language repertoire contributed to originality component of divergent thinking. Studies in Multilingual Creative Cognition demonstrated that psycholinguistic factors such as bilinguals’ proficiency in both of their languages and the age of acquisition of these languages influenced their divergent thinking (e.g., Cushen & Wiley, Reference Cushen and Wiley2011; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008, Reference Kharkhurin2009; Kostandyan & Ledovaya, Reference Kostandyan and Ledovaya2013; Lee & Kim, Reference Lee and Kim2011). Our findings show that it is not only language development factors, but also the number of languages spoken by plurilinguals might have an impact on their creative thinking.
A growing body of multilingualism literature demonstrates variations in personality traits, cognitive functioning and creative thinking between individuals who speak a different number of languages. For example, Dewaele and Wei (Reference Dewaele and Wei2013) found that individuals speaking more than two languages revealed greater tolerance for ambiguity in comparison with those speaking only one or two languages. A study of individuals speaking more than two foreign languages demonstrated a positive relationship between the number of spoken languages and personality traits such as open-mindedness and emotional stability (Korzilius, Hooft, Planken, & Hendrix, Reference Korzilius, Hooft, Planken and Hendrix2011). Similar findings were obtained by Dewaele and Botes (Reference Dewaele and Botes2019) who revealed a positive correlation between the number of spoken languages and open-mindedness, social initiative and flexibility.
Together with these findings, our findings provide support for the prudence of the language repertoire perspective. As mentioned in the introduction, in the plurilingualism framework, languages are considered as constructing a single dynamic language repertoire. The whole idea of replacing the term multilingualism with plurilingualism came from this consideration. The prefix ‘multi’ was used to stress a linear additive paradigm with addition of elements like numbers in a multiplication, or people in a multitude. The prefix ‘pluri’ was introduced to open to a complex, fluid paradigm, which would value and build on plurality, and consider embedded difference in a more holistic way. Using a mathematical notation, multilingualism=L1+L2+L3+…+Ln, whereas plurilingualism ∈ [L1, L2, L3, …, Ln].
Multicultural experience
Multicultural experience was found to predict fluency and flexibility in divergent thinking. These findings correspond to the research demonstrating the relationship between multicultural experience and various measures of creativity (e.g., Chiu & Hong, Reference Chiu and Hong2005; Chiu & Leung, Reference Chiu and Leung2007; Shao et al., Reference Shao, Zhang, Zhou, Gu and Yuan2019). For example, A. K.-y. Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, and Chiu (Reference Leung, Maddux, Galinsky and Chiu2008) measured multicultural experience using Multicultural Experience Survey (A. K.-y. Leung & Chiu, Reference Leung and Chiu2010) assessing participants’ foreign language competence, time they spent living abroad, ethnicity of their friends, and their culinary and musical preferences. Their multicultural experience was positively related to creativity-supporting cognitive processes such as retrieval of unusual information and recruitment of ideas from other cultures that expand creative pull of ideas. This experience was also related to creative functioning such as insight learning, remote association, and production of ideas.
The explanation of the relationship between multicultural experience and creativity stems from the cross-cultural research in creativity demonstrating that variations in the manners of socialization, degrees of self-perception and self-expression, education and social conduct may modulate the differences in creative performance of the representatives of different cultures (e.g., Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, Reference Kharkhurin and Samadpour Motalleebi2008; Niu & Sternberg, Reference Niu and Sternberg2001; Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross, Tobacyk, & Walczyk, Reference Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross, Tobacyk and Walczyk2006). If individuals’ creative behavior may be influenced by their experience with different cultures, the variations in plurilinguals’ cultural settings may have an impact on different aspects of their creative thinking. Indeed, plurilingual individuals acquired their languages in different countries, in which most likely they were exposed to different sociocultural environments.
One more time, this idea supports the plurilingual perspective that when we study people using multiple languages, we should consider their experience with multicultural settings. The theme of the interaction of multilingual and multicultural experiences is well addressed in plurilingualism literature. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages states that, “Plurilingualism has itself to be seen in the context of pluriculturalism. Language is not only a major aspect of culture, but also a means of access to cultural manifestations” (Council of Europe, 1996/2001, p. 6). It continues: “as an individual person's experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples <…>, he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact” (Council of Europe, 1996/2001, p. 4).
Thus, plurilinguals’ multicultural experience may encourage their creative behavior. The ‘may’ is important because this experience is not a passive process. The individuals need to notice and be interested in the affordances offered. Rietveld and Kiverstein (Reference Rietveld and Kiverstein2014) talked about “selective engagement – in concrete situations – with the rich landscape of affordances” (p. 326). Mere exposure to other cultures is not sufficient. These individuals need to actively learn from this experience and acquire new skills. Research indicates a level of engagement is necessary – reinforcing that plurilingualism is also attitudinal – not the mere presence of multiple languages and cultures (Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, Reference Maddux, Adam and Galinsky2010). Our findings support this idea by demonstrating that different divergent thinking traits seem to benefit not only from multicultural experience (which appear to be a passive process), but also from intercultural competence (which represents communication skills acquired in the process of encounter with multicultural settings).
Intercultural competence
Intercultural competence was also found to predict divergent thinking. The first aspect of intercultural competence in our study, management of intercultural interaction had impact on fluency in divergent thinking. This aspect represents various communication skills, which facilitate intercultural communication. According to the assessment tool measuring the intercultural competence in this study (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2021), these skills converge on the ability to come up with different culture sensitive strategies and implement them in culture specific settings. These strategies ensure the plurilingual individuals’ adaptation to the cultural framework of their interlocutors. The plurilinguals can employ these strategies to negotiate with their interlocutors. A habitual practice of plurilinguals to generate new strategies for cultural adaptation can facilitate their ability to rapidly produce many ideas; that is, fluency in divergent thinking. This is exactly what we found in our study.
Further, plurilinguals’ ability to employ different culture specific strategies may also facilitate their capacity to consider different approaches to a problem; that is, flexibility in divergent thinking. Our finding of marginally significant effect of the management of intercultural interaction on flexibility supports this idea.
The second aspect of intercultural competence, intercultural interest had a significant contribution to originality component of divergent thinking. This aspect reflects individuals’ interest in other cultures and cultural differences and in communicating with people from other cultures. This component addresses plurilinguals’ welcoming attitude toward other cultures, their desire to actively explore cultural values different from their own. It is not surprising that the intercultural interest correlated stronger with the Multicultural Experience Questionnaire measure of multicultural desire (the person's interest in acquiring communication experience with the representatives of another culture) than with the multicultural experience (the person's actual communication experience with the representatives of another culture) (see Table 1). Plurilingual individuals are interested in encountering people different from their own upbringing and learning from them about norms and traditions different from their own.
Our study, however, revealed negative contribution of the intercultural interest to originality. The more interest our participants revealed toward other cultures, the lower their originality in thinking. In the introduction, we discussed divergent thinking as a measure of the cognitive processes underlying creative thinking. We also claimed that this approach to creativity is limited and there are other approaches, which perceive creativity from a perspective of a person, a product, a place, perception, persuasion, and potential. Each of these approaches uses its own strategy of creativity assessment, which does not necessarily reveal convergent validity (e.g., Clapham, Reference Clapham2004; Hocevar, Reference Hocevar1981; Weiss, Wilhelm, & Kyllonen, Reference Weiss, Wilhelm and Kyllonen2021). Hence, although we found that the intercultural interest had a negative impact on divergent thinking, it should not discourage us from exploring the impact of this trait on other aspects of creativity. We return to this idea in the conclusion.
Language – culture interaction
The results of the study revealed that the size of language repertoire interacts with different culture related factors in predicting divergent thinking. Specifically, we found that the number of languages spoken by participants moderated the effect of the intercultural competence component (namely, management of intercultural interaction) on both fluency and flexibility. It is particularly interesting that the significant association between management of intercultural interaction and divergent thinking traits was found only among participants who spoke fewer languages.
In the previous section, we speculated that plurilingual individuals’ ability to generate new strategies for cultural adaptation can facilitate their fluency and flexibility. Apparently, the advantage appears viable only for those who speak a fewer number of languages. Recall from the previous discussion that individuals who speak more languages demonstrated greater tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility (Dewaele & Botes, Reference Dewaele and Botes2019; Dewaele & Wei, Reference Dewaele and Wei2013; Korzilius et al., Reference Korzilius, Hooft, Planken and Hendrix2011). Our finding suggests that those with a fewer number of languages can compensate for these disadvantages by developing their intercultural competence.
We also found that the number of languages moderated the effect of multicultural experience on originality. In the same vein as our finding about the intercultural competence, the significant association between multicultural experience and originality was found only among participants who spoke a larger number of languages. Recall that multicultural experience was found to predict fluency and flexibility, but not originality. Apparently, plurilingual individuals need to acquire a critical number of languages before multicultural experience can boost their originality.
Both speculations are subject to future research.
Conclusion
The most important conclusion from the findings of this study provides support for plausibility of the plurilingual creativity perspective. It is not language repertoire per se, but the interaction of both language and culture related factors that influences plurilinguals’ divergent thinking. Hence, it is important to consider the cultural dimensions in the studies of plurilingual creativity as well as in the framework of plurilingualism at large. Earlier we talked about plurality of languages (plurilingualism) in the sense that languages form a single dynamic repertoire. Based on our findings, we can talk about plurality of cultures (pluriculturalism) as well: “in a person's cultural competence, the various cultures (national, regional, social) to which that person has gained access do not simply coexist side by side; they are compared, contrasted and actively interact to produce an enriched, integrated pluricultural competence, of which plurilingual competence is one component, again interacting with other components” (Council of Europe, 1996/2001, p. 6). Here the plurilingual competence is presented as a constituent of pluricultural competence.
In any case, it is evident that these two components of an individual's experience are inseparable. Reflecting on this notion, Galante (Reference Galante2020) developed a scale of plurilingual and pluricultural competence. The assessment consists of 22 Likert-type 4-point scales measuring plurilinguals’ flexible language use and cross-cultural awareness. Informed by sociolinguistics theories in educational linguistics, including plurilingualism and translanguaging, the plurilingual and pluricultural competence scale had its content validated by researchers, language teachers and learners. Different rounds of factor analyses demonstrated that all 22 scales converge on one factor and therefore measure a single construct. This suggests that language and culture are interrelated. The findings of the present study support this idea. It seems to be prudent to use this scale in the future studies in plurilingual creativity relating the plurilingual/pluricultural competence to various creativity traits.
At the very end, let us present a few directions for further research. Once again, we found interactive effects of plurilingual and pluricultural competences on creative thinking. A logical question would be what factors could mediate these effects? Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin, Piccardo, Germain-Rutherford and Lawrence2021) identified several personality traits such as tolerance of ambiguity, openness, and cognitive flexibility, which can mediate the effect of plurilingualism/pluriculturalism on creativity.
Studies in creative personality hint at tolerance of ambiguity as a personality trait related to an individual's creative behavior (e.g., Zenasni, Besançon, & Lubart, Reference Zenasni, Besançon and Lubart2008). Earlier we mentioned that speaking different number of languages was linked to tolerance of ambiguity (Dewaele & Wei, Reference Dewaele and Wei2013). Second language acquisition experts also proposed this trait as a key to successful L2 learning (e.g., Oxford & Ehrman, Reference Oxford and Ehrman1992; Rubin, Reference Rubin1975).
One can also think about a study investigating the links between plurilingualism and creative personality and the mediation of this relationship by the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, neuroticism).
Further, recent studies confirmed the presence of a relationship between advanced knowledge and frequent use of more languages and open-mindedness (Dewaele & Stavans, Reference Dewaele and Stavans2012; Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, Reference Dewaele and van Oudenhoven2009). Referring to various sociocultural constructs, the operational definition of this trait is the following: “open and unprejudiced attitude towards outgroup members and towards different cultural norms and values” (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, p. 449). In other words, cultural openness can be considered in the context of openness to new experience and new ideas, which has long been viewed as a key component of creativity (e.g., Feist, Reference Feist1998; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O'Connor, Reference Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin and O'Connor2009).
Furthermore, cognitive flexibility is also viewed as a critical component of creativity (Guilford, Reference Guilford1968). This trait enables a person to look at things from many different angles, quickly switching between perspectives, thinking outside the box. Many studies demonstrated that bilinguals surpass their monolingual counterparts on this trait (e.g., Carringer, Reference Carringer1974; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008; Konaka, Reference Konaka1997). Moreover, recent studies revealed that multilingual children and adults perform better at non-linguistic tasks that require cognitive flexibility (e.g., Adi-Japha et al., Reference Adi-Japha, Berberich-Artzi and Libnawi2010; Carlson & Meltzoff, Reference Carlson and Meltzoff2008; Costa, Hernandez, & Sebastián-Gallés, Reference Costa, Hernandez and Sebastián-Gallés2008).
One more important factor that is related to an individual's creativity could be motivation. Recent research demonstrated that both successful language learning (e.g., Engjn, Reference Engjn2009; Masgoret & Gardner, Reference Masgoret and Gardner2003; Wang, Reference Wang2008) and prolific creative behavior (e.g., Amabile, Reference Amabile1996; Hennessey, Reference Hennessey, Kaufman and Sternberg2010) were related to motivation. Current theories on the role of motivation in creativity (see Collins & Amabile, Reference Collins, Amabile and Sternberg1999, for an overview) emphasized that creativity thrives in environments that promote intrinsic motivation (stimulated by personal interest and inner potential) and suffocates in environments that emphasize extrinsic motivation (such as rewards and incentives). As a result, individuals with high intrinsic motivation may successfully engage in plurilingual practice and demonstrate high creative performance.
Finally, we propose that creative perception can mediate the plurilingualism–creativity relationship. Kharkhurin and Charkhabi (Reference Kharkhurin and Charkhabi2021) defined creative perception as an individual's ability to identify creative elements in oneself, others, and the environment. They claimed that this ability may encourage an individual to engage in creative thinking and subsequently in creative behavior. The operational definition of the creative perception of the environment refers to individuals’ preference for complexity in their surrounding (Kharkhurin & Yagolkovskiy, Reference Kharkhurin and Yagolkovskiy2019). The very nature of plurilingualism paradigm adopted in the present project emphasizes complexity of plurilingual/pluricultural experience. Hence, we could expect that creative perception may mediate the relationship between plurilingualism and creativity.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000864
Acknowledgements
The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2022-325).
