Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Macro, Meso, and Micro Creativity: The Role of Cultural Carriers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture ((PASCC))

Abstract

This chapter makes the distinction between creative processes at three levels: macro, involving large-scale societal transformations; meso, involving organizational and small group-level processes; and mirco, involving intra-personal processes. We argue that processes at all three levels are involved in creativity, even when the unit generating creativity is primarily macro, meso, or micro. Traditional creativity research has focused on micro-level creativity, such as ‘Edison as inventor of genius.’ However, clearly Edison’s inventions were influenced by the macro processes of his cultural context as well as meso processes in the work groups and organizations he was part of. Attention has also been given to meso-level creativity; work groups and organizations, such as Apple and Microsoft, are ‘creative units.’ Far less attention has been given to macro-level creativity. A better understanding of macro creativity within the three-tier model can help explain historical, philosophical, and psychological evidence that creativity, while always connected to intra-personal processes, is also largely communal. Ultimately, a more holistic and culturally-based understanding of creativity will be more rewarding and accurate than a focus on one tier alone.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Even in 2001, after the brainstorming boom, Kurtzberg and Amabile shared our complaint (2000–2001).

  2. 2.

    In theory, brainstorming is a compacted, artificial form of creative Darwinism. Rather than pitting only one person’s ideas together, a group can set that many more ideas up against each other. More competition means that the end product will ultimately be better and stronger. Simonton touches the relationship between cultural factors and individual creativity through a Darwinistic lens in his 1999 paper (317).

  3. 3.

    Bennis and Biederman examined ‘Great Groups’ like Apple and the scientists behind the Human Genome Project in their 1997 book Organizing Genius: The Secret of Creative Collaboration.

  4. 4.

    C.f. Vygotsky 1978.

References

  • Albert, R. S. (1971). Cognitive development and parental loss among the gifted, the exceptionally gifted and the creative. Psychological Reports, 29(1), 19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 87, 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1999). All creation is a collaboration. In A. Montouri & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (pp. 49–59). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual review of psychology, 32(1), 439–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (2007). Organizing genius. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, D. J. (2009, August). ADAPTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL LOAFING. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 1–6). Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2007). Democracy in animals: The evolution of shared group decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, 274, 2317–2326.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. H., Gallupe, R. B., Pollard, S., & Cadsby, J. (1998). Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(2), 147–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demb, J. (1992). Are gay men artistic? A review of the literature. Journal of homosexuality, 23(4), 83–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drevdahl, J. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1958). Personality and creativity in artists and writers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizations, 58, 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1959). Homosexuality and creativity. Journal of clinical psychology, 15(4), 376-379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2007). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class—Revisited (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. London/New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowan, J. C. (1967). Creativity: Its educational implications. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. San Diego: RR Knapp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ideo. Human centered design toolkit (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/hcd_toolkit/IDEO_HCD_ToolKit.pdf

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, J., Ruxton, G. D., & Krause, S. (2009). Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European journal of social psychology, 3(4), 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, C. C., & Lo, S. S. H. (Eds.) (2014). Creativity and culture in greater China: The role of government, individuals and groups. Los Angeles: Bridge21 Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small group research, 27(2), 248–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2002). The individual and society: A cultural integration. New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2012). The omnicultural imperative. Culture & Psychology, 18, 304–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). The psychology of dictatorship. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 524–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group performance. Hove/New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2006). Production blocking and idea generation: A reduction of failures explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different?: Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39(1), 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea‐generating groups. Applied psychology, 49(2), 237–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.) (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness: New findings and old stereotypes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. The Journal of genetic psychology, 122(1), 45–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, T. D. (2010). Honeybee democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(1), 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In Handbook of creativity (Vol. 13, p. 251) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly 3(1), 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (2006). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts. In Small groups: Key readings (pp. 55–64) New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogue (2015, March). View. P. 418, 430, 432, 434, 436, 438, 442, 444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, White Gravenor Hall (3rd floor), Washington, DC, 20057, USA

    Fathali M. Moghaddam & Lauren Covalucci

  2. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA

    Fathali M. Moghaddam & Lauren Covalucci

Authors
  1. Fathali M. Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Covalucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fathali M. Moghaddam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Vlad Petre Glăveanu

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moghaddam, F.M., Covalucci, L. (2016). Macro, Meso, and Micro Creativity: The Role of Cultural Carriers. In: Glăveanu, V. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46344-9_35

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation