Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

National Culture, Creativity, and Productivity:

What’s the Relationship with Student
Achievement?

Zheng Fang, Xianxuan Xu, Leslie W. Grant, James H. Stronge & Thomas J.
Ward

To cite this article: Zheng Fang, Xianxuan Xu, Leslie W. Grant, James H. Stronge & Thomas J.
Ward (2016) National Culture, Creativity, and Productivity: What’s the Relationship with Student
Achievement?, Creativity Research Journal, 28:4, 395-406, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1229976

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1229976

Published online: 14 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 901

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 28(4), 395–406, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print/1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1229976

National Culture, Creativity, and Productivity: What’s

the Relationship with Student Achievement?
Zheng Fang
South China Normal University

Xianxuan Xu, Leslie W. Grant, James H. Stronge, and Thomas J. Ward

College of William and Mary

Using Hofstede’s culture dimensions and World Values Survey (WVS) dimensions, the study uses
a series of multiple regressions to explore the relationship among national culture, creativity as
measured by patents, economic productivity as measured by gross domestic product per capita,
and student achievement as measured by Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.
The findings of this exploratory study highlight long-term orientation value from Hofstede’s
national culture dimensions and tradition versus secular-rational values from the WVS as the most
significant predictors of student academic achievement. A series of 12 regression analyses
indicated significant relationships among student achievement, creativity, and economic produc-
tivity with models explaining between 19.9% and 76.0% of the variance among countries.

INTRODUCTION long-term outcomes of education include productivity and

Global interdependence of nations has become a key issue in
understanding political, economic, social, and educational
issues of contemporary society. This global interdependence
has paved the way for increased focus and emphasis on inter-
national comparisons of educational performance. Indeed, a
central way that nations benchmark their educational competi-
tiveness is through the use of international assessments such as
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS). Kagan and Stewart (2004) summarized this
benchmarking well by concluding that “globalization is driv-
ing demand for an internationally competitive workforce”
(p. 231). However, some writers claim that the focus on one
single, short-term academic outcome measure to judge the
competitiveness—educational or otherwise—of a nation is
short-sighted and does not connect short-term outcomes with
long-term results (see, for example, The Economist, 2013).
Indeed, going well beyond test scores such as those produced
by PISA and TIMSS, Berger and Fisher (2013) noted that
Address correspondence to: Zheng Fang, School of Education Science,
South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510631, China.
E-mail: 564357448@qq.com
innovation, and that ignoring such measures of educational
success and failing to connect them to academic results are
detrimental to the economic health of a state or a nation
(OECD, 2010).
In an earlier study, the authors explored the relationship
between national culture and student achievement as mea-
sured by the 2009 PISA. The study indicated that a culture’s
orientation toward long-term results and perseverance was a
significant predictor of student achievement in mathematics,
reading, and science (Fang, Grant, Xu, Stronge, & Ward,
2013). The study focused on student academic outcomes as
a measure by which to compare nations and to explore
whether national culture could explain meaningful differ-
ences in student achievement. However, it is important to
acknowledge short-term academic outcomes (i.e., a score on
a battery of achievement tests) are but one measure of
comparing the educational efficacy of nations. Indeed,
longer-term outcomes of education, such as creativity and
performance (such as economic output), are important cor-
relates of an educational system.
In this study, selected long-term outcomes were exam-
ined in relation to international measures of student achieve-
ment. Specifically, this study explored the following
relationships: student achievement as measured by the
TIMSS, national culture as measured by Hofstede’s cultural
396 Z. FANG ET AL.
dimensions and the World Values Survey (WVS), creativity
as measured by patents produced by a nation’s people, and
economic performance as measured by gross domestic pro-
duct (GDP) per capita. Additionally, TIMSS was used as the
academic outcome measure in this study to test whether the
relationship between short-term academic outcomes and
national culture would be replicable with TIMSS as it was
with PISA in the earlier study, and to extend understanding
by expanding dependent variables to include long-term out-
comes. As such, this study sought to answer the following
question:
What is the relationship between national culture, short-
term academic outcomes, creativity, and economic perfor-
mance in selected nations from across the world?
DEFINING CULTURE
Culture, no doubt, is one of the most influential and core
concepts in social science research. In a seminal work,
Parsons (1937) argued that the role of culture is essential
in basic processes of world history and it is crucial to
codify cultures to understand them. Culture is such an
important independent variable that it could never be
deducted from any other variable in social analysis.
The use of the concept culture can be traced back as a
term first used in the Tusculanae Disputationes, by the
Roman orator, Cicero (1927), representing the meaning
of cultivation of the soul, which focused on the general
meaning of improvement or refinement of individuals.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, researchers began to
use culture in a more specific way, especially from an
anthropological point of view, emphasizing culture as a
universal human capacity (see, for example, Smith,
1933; Tylor, 1891/1920). One of the earliest and widely
cited articulations of the anthropological meaning of
culture is: “Culture, or civilization, taken in its broads,
ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a mem-
ber of society” (cited in Tylor, 1871/1920, p. 1).
It was not until 1920 that social scientists found Tylor’s
definition connected to many elements that could not be
united. The research endeavor related to culture doubled in
the following 30 years. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952)
compiled 164 definitions of culture and finally summed
up that “culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit,
of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols”
and “the essential core of culture consists of traditional …
ideas and especially their attached values” (cited in
Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 181). Culture, in essence,
includes the ways of thinking, the ways of acting, and the
material objects that shape people’s minds and mold their
behavior.
Culture and Education
Theoretical and Conceptual Connection of Culture
and Education
The role of culture and its influence on society, especially
education, has always held researchers’ interest in social
science. Some researchers discussed the role of culture on
education, mostly from an anthropological view (Spindler &
Spindler, 1989). Sadler (1900) advocated a systematic per-
spective to examine education internationally. He posited
that when studying systems of education, “we should not
forget that the things outside the schools matter even more
than the things inside the schools, and govern and interpret
the things inside” (reprinted in Bereday, 1964, p. 310).
Sadler’s line of thinking—one must study the school against
its social background—became the cornerstone of the theo-
retical orientation of comparative education research in the
20th century. Some writers even warned if a researcher
“cannot achieve cultural objectivity he had better steer
clear of educational reform” (Roberts, 1975, p. 720).
The beliefs and practices of education—schooling, teaching,
and learning—do not begin and end in the classroom. Planel
(1997) conducted an exploratory ethnographic study on English
and French cultural and educational values in elementary school.
The findings suggested that cultural values gave more meaning
to student learning than styles of pedagogy. If this line of reason-
ing is followed, teaching and learning are shaped by national
culture and history, and they can only be comprehended in its
wider society (Cowen, 2009). Parsons (1973) and other sociol-
ogists (e.g., Merton, 1968) developed a model of structural
functionalism, with a broad focus on interconnection among
culture, economy, political order, and societal systems. As a
form of a cultural institution, the school is seen as an integral
part of societies, which both depends on and serves societies. As
an instrument of transmitting knowledge and values of societies,
it is essential that schooling be viewed within cultural contexts.
Contemporary Connection Between Culture and
Education
The stellar performance of East Asian countries grabbed
headlines in 2009 and again in 2012 when their 15-year-olds
outperformed their peers from other countries in PISA.
There has been considerable speculation that a Confucian-
oriented culture has specific cultural traits that support stu-
dent academic development—perhaps especially short-term
student achievement results. Indeed, a plethora of studies
have explored how educational practice in East Asian coun-
tries is organized differently from the West and the intricate
relationship between Asian educational practice and under-
lying culture (e.g., House & Telese, 2008; Leung, 1995,
2001; Li & Shimizu, 2009; Tweed & Lehman, 2002).
Most of this extant line of research is limited to the dichot-
omy of East versus West (Kim, Lee, Chae, Anderson, &
Laurence, 2011; Ng, 2003; Rudowicz & Ng, 2003). Indeed,

this line of research focuses on how cultural heritage exerts
an enduring and autonomous influence on societies in spite
of economic and political modernization (Inglehart & Baker,
2000). Once established, the differences between the values
become part of a national culture preserved by educational
institutions and mass media.
Unfortunately, there are very limited empirical studies
directly examining the relationship between culture and educa-
tional outcomes. The field of international comparative studies
on student achievement would benefit from considering cultures
across the world, rather than by just cherry-picking a few. The
earlier study by Fang et al. (2013) found that the national culture
models explained between 44.6% to 52.8% of variance in world-
wide educational achievement comparisons in all three PISA
domains of reading, math, and science. This study is intended to
further illuminate the interconnectivity between culture and
educational success.
Culture, Creativity, and Productivity
Although using student achievement on international assess-
ments provides a basis for comparing how students in varied
national cultures perform, this focus is on the short-term out-
comes of education as an indication of the success of a nation.
However, others view longer-term outcomes as important in
assessing the quality of an educational system. Two of those
longer-term outcomes include a society’s creativity and produc-
tivity. Ultimately, a main aim of most global educational reforms
is to promote students’ creativity and productive capacity, typi-
cally by developing new and improved curriculum or instruc-
tion. Additionally, there is evidence that education can foster
productivity growth in the long run in that education is a form of
productive assets (Plant & Welch, 1984; Walberg & Stariha,
1992), and productivity has been regarded as one of robust
results for long-term education outcomes. To illustrate, econo-
mists found that an improvement of one-half standard deviation
in mathematics and science performance as measured by PISA
at the individual level implies an increase of 0.87% in annual
growth rates of GDP per capita (Hanushek & Woessmann,
2010). However, the impact of culture on educational achieve-
ment, especially in the long-term, still remains a longstanding
challenge in educational research.
Culture and Creativity
Creativity is the production of novel and appropriate
work. In a review of definitions of creativity over time, a
standard definition has emerged (Runco & Jaeger, 2012).
Creativity involves at least two criteria: originality and
effectiveness. Effectiveness may be viewed in terms of the
value or usefulness of the innovation or creation. Simonton
(2012) used the United States Patent Office criteria for
evaluating patent applications to offer a third criterion for
creativity: nonobvious or surprise.
NATIONAL CULTURE, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY 397
In the past several decades, researchers have partly revealed
the determinants of creativity, with culture being identified as
one of the important sources of creativity (Mumford &
Gustafson, 1988). Indeed, Csikszentmihalyi (2014) explained,
“We cannot study creativity by isolating individuals and their
works from the social and historical milieu in which their
actions are carried out” (p. 47). Although this quote refers to
individuals, perhaps the same argument can be applied when
speaking of actions and creativity of cultures within nations.
The creativity of a nation must be examined within the context
of that nation’s culture.
Although researchers and practitioners, alike, frequently look
to countries such as China (specifically Shanghai), Taiwan,
Korea, and Singapore for student performance on standardized
assessments, the same cannot be said for developing creativity.
Zhao (2012) indicated that “educational practices and societal
factors that help students achieve academically may hamper
entrepreneurial qualities and reduce creativity” (p. 4). A review
of literature reveals that student performance on international
assessments is, in some instances, negatively correlated with
measures of entrepreneurship. For example, Singapore and
Japan, whose students score among the top on international
assessments, have two of the lowest scores on a measure of
perceived capabilities in entrepreneurship (Bosma, Wennekers,
& Amoros, 2012). Entrepreneurship and innovation are two
ways of thinking about the manifestations of and measurement
of creativity.
Cultures differ in the extent to which they value and nurture
creativity. Lubart (1999) identified four ways that culture might
impact creativity: (a) People from different cultures may have
different concepts of creativity; (b) people from different cultures
may use different psychological processes when they engage in
creative endeavors; (c) language may influence the development
of creativity; and (d) environment can either promote or reduce
people’s creativity. Additionally, various studies have found that
Western societies tend to have higher scores on measures of
creative potential than Asian countries (Kharkhurin &
Motalleebi, 2008; Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross, Tobacyk, &
Walczyk, 2006).
To continue this line of investigation, research has established
a positive relationship between individualism and creativity,
suggesting that beliefs associated with individualism, such as
autonomy, independence, and freedom, are essential for a nation
to be creative (Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2013). Cultures
characterized by individualism, such as the ones in North
American and Western European countries, that define the self
as autonomous and value independence, tend to stimulate crea-
tivity; collectivist cultures tend to define the self within social
context and value conformity to tradition, obedience, coopera-
tion, and acceptance of an in-group authority tend to hinder
creativity (Lubart & Georgsdottir, 2004). Gorodnichenko and
Roland (2010) also found that more individualism leads to more
innovation due to culturally induced social rewards, using an
endogenous growth model including a cultural variable.
398 Z. FANG ET AL.
Culture and Productivity
Likewise, cultural comparisons are often made in terms of
productivity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD, 2013) offered the common defini-
tion of productivity as “a ratio between the volume of output
and the volume of inputs” (p. 11). Measuring productivity is
key in understanding the economic health of a nation and the
degree to which living standards improve (OECD, 2013).
The question then becomes: Are there national cultures that
are more productive than others? Researchers do believe that
there are certain distinctive cultural values that may nurture
higher productivity. Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2006)
posited that culture is economically important to some basic
financial attributes, such as national rates of saving. Cox,
Friedman, and Tribunella (2011) found a relationship
between productivity and national culture. Specifically, they
used GDP weighted by environmental sustainability and
found that individualism is positively correlated with GDP
and power distance (i.e., how subordinates accept unequal
power distribution) is negatively correlated. Gorodnichenko
and Roland (2010) also compared individualism against col-
lectivism and found individualism led to higher long-term
growth. Given these and related studies it does appear that
productivity (i.e., GDP) and culture are related (Franke,
Hofstede, & Bond, 1991).
Measuring Culture
The Unit of Cultural Analysis
Although culture is a popular and central construct in inves-
tigations into creativity, productivity, economic sustainability,
and the like, it was not until the middle of the 20th century that
attempts were made to clarify and measure it, perhaps due to the
fact that culture is such a highly complex, multilayered, and
multidimensional concept (e.g., England, 1967; Haire, Ghiselli,
& Porter, 1966; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Kuhn &
McPartland, 1954). Since then, culture measurement techniques
have prospered (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996; Hofstede, 1980;
Inglehart, 1997; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Schwartz,
1994; Trompenaars, 1993; WVS, 2008a), and they also promote
and deepen culture research, itself, in turn. Indeed, researchers
have identified a main catalogue of tools to quantify culture, and
121 instruments have been developed over the last half century
(Taras, Rowney, & Steel, 2009).
Despite the limitations in capturing the heterogeneity of a
country’s culture, most researchers are still prone to use the
country as a unit of analysis due to its convenience, suitability,
and availability, as compared to other units like religion, social
classes, or cohorts of generations. Schaffer and Riordan (2003),
in analyzing 210 studies published in nine top-tier journals in the
fields of management and psychology between 1995 and 2001
reported in their findings that 79% of cross-cultural studies used
country as a proxy for culture.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Among various measurements, Hofstede, a Dutch social
psychologist who is recognized among the top 100 most cited
authors in the Social Science Citation Index, developed his
notable national cultural dimension theory that is generally
accepted as the most comprehensive framework for measuring
culture (Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2006). Between the late
1960s and 1970s, Hofstede executed a large survey study on
national value differences, sampling 117,000 IBM employees
from 55 countries, focusing on people’s behavior and how they
collaborated. By 2010, the sample for this survey had extended
to 76 countries. His initial analysis extracted the first four
primary dimensions from factor analysis that were named
power distance index (PDI), individualism index (IDV), mascu-
linity index (MAS), and uncertainty avoidance index (UAI),
respectively. Replication studies conducted subsequently cov-
ered 14 or more countries and found similar results (de Mooij,
2004; Helmreich & Merritt, 1998; Hoppe, 1990, 1998;
Mouritzen & Svara, 2002; Shane, 1995). In 1991, Band and
colleagues conducted the Chinese Value Survey in 23 countries
to solve the Western bias problem in previous international
value surveys. The results from this study helped Hofstede
identify a new fifth dimension named long-term orientation
(LTO). The sample for this dimension then was expanded to
93 countries. In 2010, Michael Minkov carried out the second
expansion of the Hofstede Dimension model based on World
Value Survey data from 93 countries. Finally, Minkov’s WVS
data led Hofstede to add a sixth dimension, indulgence versus
restraint (IVR; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). In sum-
mary, the synthesis of the aforementioned research yielded the
six dimensions in Hofstede’s culture model. Following are short
descriptions of the six dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010).
● PDI) expresses the degree that the less powerful members
expect and accept the unequal distribution of power in a
society.
● IDV describes the degree of the combination of indi-
viduals into groups in a society.
● MAS is the degree of how emotional gender roles in a
society are identified.
● UAI represents the degree to which people in a society
feel uncomfortable with unclear or unknown situations.
● LTO describes the way a society searches for virtue
through perseverance and thrift or through respecting
tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and emphasizing
quick results.
● IVR expresses the extent to which people in a society try
to control their basic and natural desires and impulses.
WVS
Another prominent study regarding national culture is the
WVS. WVS is an international survey that investigates

differences and changes in people’s values and beliefs, and
their social and political impact. It is performed by a world-
wide network of social scientists under the auspices of the
World Values Survey Association in Sweden. The organiza-
tion has conducted national surveys in 97 societies, repre-
senting almost 90% of the world’s population (WVS,
2008b). WVS has executed five waves of surveys between
1981 and 2007, including major areas of human activities
such as religion, politics, economy, and social life. WVS
used stratified random sampling to obtain representative
national samples drawn from the population 18 years and
above, with the minimum sample being 1,000. The partici-
pants were interviewed face-to-face or by phone during a
limited time frame using uniformly structured question-
naires. The WVS data indicated that the basic values that
distinguished countries from one another could be depicted
statistically in two clusters: traditional/secular-rational and
survival/self-expression values (WVS, 2008b).
Traditional/secular-rational values show the extent to
which religion is important to the society. In traditional
society—such as African countries, Latin American countries,
and South Asian countries—religion is central and traditional
values are emphasized, including religiosity, national pride,
obedience to authority, close parent-child ties, traditional
family values, and strict family education. To illustrate, socie-
ties near the traditional pole reject divorce, abortion, euthana-
sia, and suicide. In secular-rational societies—such as East
Asian countries, Northern European countries, and Eastern
European countries—people place less emphasis on religion,
traditional family values and authority, and embrace the oppo-
site preferences on all these aspects.
Survival/self-expression values reflect a spectrum of how
societies consider economic and physical security versus qual-
ity of life and subjective well-being as important, typically
comparing the priorities in industrial and postindustrial socie-
ties. In developed countries—such as English-speaking coun-
tries, northern European countries, and German-speaking
countries—individuals within society are not as concerned
with merely surviving. If this point is considered in light of
Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs, they are not as concerned
with physiological and safety issues. After having more secur-
ity, people living in these societies focus on improving quality
of life and continuing to develop a sense of belonging, esteem,
and self-actualization (Maslow, 1954). Conversely, societies at
the survival end of this continuum—such as Eastern European
countries, South Asian countries, and African countries—are
more concerned with those issues of food, clothing, and shel-
ter, as well as safety (WVS, 2008a).
In summary, the study seeks to explore the relationship
between national culture, short-term academic outcomes, crea-
tivity, and economic performance in selected nations from
across the world. Most international comparisons of educational
achievement have focused on short-term outcomes of education.
One proxy for the short-term outcomes of education is student
performance on standardized assessments while in school. This
NATIONAL CULTURE, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY 399
study, however, seeks to explore relationships among culture,
short-term academic outcomes, and other more long-term mea-
sures of the quality of an educational system—creativity and
economic performance. The intention is to expand the interna-
tional conversation about what measures provide an indication
of educational success and how culture influences those
measures.
METHOD
Data Sources
This study used one measure of student academic outcomes—
TIMSS—and two measures of country outcomes—patent
awards and GDP per capita. The study also used two instru-
ments to measure culture: Hofstede’s Dimensions of National
Culture and the WVS.
TIMSS
The TIMSS provides reliable and timely data on the
mathematics and science achievement at the fourth and
eighth grades in participating countries (TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center, 2013a). TIMSS data have been
collected since 1995 and every 4 years thereafter. This study
used country-level TIMSS 2011 data (TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center, 2013b).
GDP Per Capita
GDP per capita is a measurement of what average per-
formance each citizen gives in a country. GDP per capita is
one of the most commonly used measures for productivity
and, as with other studies, it was used in this study as a
proxy for productivity (Cox et al., 2011; OECD, 2013;
Ramirez, Luo, Schofer, & Meyer, 2006). It is frequently
used when comparing one country to another because it
shows the relative standing of prosperity within and
among countries. This study used 2011 GDP per capita
data (World Bank, 2013).
Patents
Patents refer to the exclusive rights given to an inventor by
a sovereign state in order the invention from unauthorized
duplication. As with other studies, patents were used in this
study as a proxy for creativity, because this is the single best
available measure for creativity outputs (Huber, 1998; Kaasa
& Vadi, 2010; Williams & McGuire, 2010). Although patents
are specific to each sovereign state, the World Trade
Organization has worked to globalize patent regulations.
Through the Patent Cooperation Treaty of the United
Nations, there are 140 countries that work together to protect
the intellectual property rights of inventors worldwide. This
study used national patent counts per 1,000 people for the 10-
year time period from 2001 to 2011 (USPTO, 2013).
400 Z. FANG ET AL.

Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture dimensions. As a result, there were 60 countries that
appeared in at least one of the analyses.
Hofstede’s six dimensions of national culture were
Table 2 presents the correlations between the academic
used as one set of independent variables: PDI, IDV,
outcome measures and the long-term country outcome mea-
MAS, UAI, LTO, and IVR. The data for this study were
sures. All of the correlations between the outcome measures
retrieved from the 2010 edition of Hofstede et al.’s
were significant and in the moderate range. The magnitude of
Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
the correlations ranged from .362 to .505. These results support
the existence of a relationship between the short-term educa-
WVS
tional outcomes and the long-term economic outcomes for
The two dimensions of WVS—traditional/secular- countries included in the study.
rational and survival/self-expression values—were applied
as a second measure of culture. This study used the fifth
The Relationship Between Culture and Student
wave national-level value scores by country from WVS
Achievement
survey (WVS, 2008a).
Table 3 provides a summary of this set of regression analyses,
with all of the regressions resulting in significant (p < .01) mod-
RESULTS els with R2 values ranging from .199 to .760. These results
indicate a wide range of predictive power for the culture
The guiding question for this study was the relationship measures.
among the measures of cultural dimensions, student Table 4 summarizes the results of the individual
achievement, creativity, and productivity outcomes.1 To regression analyses and displays the significant predictors
examine these relationships, a series of multiple regres- for each model. Examination of the significantly contri-
sions was conducted. These regressions used the national
scores from the TIMSS, number of patents, and GDP per
capita as the three target variables and the cultural dimen- TABLE 1.
sions from the Hofstede and the WVS as the predictors. Descriptive Statistics for Study Measures
Because not all countries have Hofstede and WVS mea-
Measure N Mean Standard Deviation
sures, and because there are different country samples at
the fourth and eighth grades in TIMSS, separate analyses TIMSS
were conducted for each outcome measure and the cul- Grade 4 Math 35 513.66 52.14
tural dimensions instruments. Thus, of necessity, 12 Grade 4 Science 35 513.29 54.11
Grade 8 Math 24 494.92 68.67
regressions were calculated. Only the cultural measures
Grade 8 Science 24 503.42 52.81
were used as the predictor variables in regressions Patents per 1,000 60 .27 .54
because the primary question of interest was the predic- GDP per capita 59 $21,679.59 $20,467.16
tive power of the culture measures. All of the analyses Hofstede
were conducted with SPSS 21 (IBM, 2012). Due to the Power Distance 60 58.92 20.71
Individualism 60 44.88 23.58
exploratory nature of the study, all predictor variables Masculinity 60 48.68 20.43
were entered into the prediction models. Thus, the overall Uncertainty Avoidance 60 66.65 23.22
R2 values should be viewed as an overestimate capitaliz- Long-Term Orientation 60 48.77 22.63
ing on the non-significant predictors. Indulgence vs. Restraint 60 47.03 22.57
WVS
Traditional/Secular 48 −.14 .98
The Relationship Between Short-term Academic Survival/Self-expression 48 .11 1.09
Outcomes, Creativity, and Productivity
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the overall
sample of countries used in the analyses. Note that there TABLE 2.
were different samples of countries that had available data Correlations Among Outcome Measures
on the combinations of academic outcomes and cultural
Measure Patents per 1,000 GDP per capita

TIMSS
Grade 4 Matha .486** .397*
1
As a subtheme to the guiding question, the relationship between the Grade 4 Sciencea .379** .362*
short-term academic outcomes and the longer-term measures of productiv- Grade 8 Mathb .494* .432*
ity at a national level were examined. To examine this question, bivariate Grade 8 Scienceb .470* .505**
correlations between the TIMSS measures (short-term outcomes) and GDP
per capita and patents (long-term country outcomes) were examined. Notes: A N = 35, b N = 24, * p < .05, ** p < .01
 NATIONAL CULTURE, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY 401

TABLE 3. word regarding an underpinning philosophy for studies of

Summary of Regressions of Cultural Dimensions as Predictors of this nature might be in order. Of particular interest in
Academic Achievement and Country Outcome
terms of background philosophical grounding is the con-
Hofstede WVS cept and reality of globalization in which a people’s
aspirations merge with their access to and acquisition of
Dependent Variable R2 F N R2 F N
high-quality education. In essence, a nation’s well-being
TIMSS Grade 4 Math .544 5.56** 35 .496 9.34** 22 and future prospects rest heavily on the education of its
TIMSS Grade 4 Science .425 3.45* 35 .342 4.95* 22 people. Specifically, the impact of globalization on econo-
TIMSS Grade 8 Math .645 5.16* 24 .620 14.66** 21 mies is rapidly posing new and demanding challenges to
TIMSS Grade 8 Science .529 3.19* 24 .596 13.27** 21
individuals and societies. In this globalized world, people
Patents per 1,000 .270 3.49* 60 .199 5.59* 48
GDP per capita .498 10.53** 59 .760 69.48** 47 compete for jobs, not just locally, but internationally.
Inherent in this statement is the notion that schools and
Notes: * p < .01; * * p < .001 students in any nation must remain competitive to support
tomorrow’s economy and prosperity (Xu, Popp, Stronge,
& Kang, 2012). It is this intersection between a nation’s
buting variables showed LTO (future orientation versus educational capacity and its present and future productiv-
past and present orientation) on the Hofstede culture ity that inform and guide this study.
model to be a significant predictor of all measured out-
comes. Also, as presented in Table 4, the WVS factor,
National Culture and Educational Outcomes
traditional/secular dimension (comparing social groups in
different religious traditions), was a significant predictor The first objective in this study was to examine the relation-
of all student achievement outcomes while survival/self- ship between national culture and student achievement as
expression contributed only to the GDP per capita model. measured by TIMSS. TIMSS was selected for the study in
The contribution of LTO and traditional/secular is greater an effort to confirm findings from a previous study, which
for the academic outcomes than for GDP per capita and found a significant relationship between national culture and
patents. Interestingly, only GDP per capita produced sta- student achievement as measured by PISA (Fang et al.,
tistically significant results with multiple predictors within 2013). The previous study found long-term orientation to
the Hofstede cultural model. In addition to LTO, the be a significant predictor of student achievement. This cur-
dimensions of IVR and IDV also are significantly predic- rent study confirmed earlier finding using a different student
tive of GPD per capita. achievement outcome measure.
In addition, the study revealed that selected cultural
dimensions—specifically, the traditional/secular dimension
DISCUSSION as found in the WVS model and LTO as measured in the
Hofstede model—consistently demonstrated their explana-
Prior to providing a more detailed discussion of the tory power for all dependent variables considered in the
specific findings of the study, especially in terms of the study. These culture-outcome relationships extended to
relationship of a nation’s culture on educational outcomes both short-term outcomes (the three TIMSS educational
and creativity as expressed in patent development, a brief achievement domains of student academic achievement)

TABLE 4.
Standardized Regression Weights for Cultural Measures as Predictors of Achievement and Nation Performance

Dependent Variable

Predictor Variable Gr 4 Math GR 4 Science Gr 8 Math Gr 8 Science Patents GDP per capita

Power Distance −.147 −.034 −.183 −.264 −.231 −.133

Individualism −.158 .021 .031 .113 .090 .305*
Masculinity .025 −.005 .150 .039 .095 −.049
Uncertainty Avoidance −.253 −.124 −.206 −.056 −.099 −.069
Long-Term Orientation .718*** .689*** .835*** .748*** .371** .282*
Indulgence vs. Restraint .150 .236 .108 .208 .298 .326*
Traditional/Secular .716*** .590** .800*** .779*** .334* .464***
Survival/Self-expression −.228 −.026 −.229 −.037 .253 .660***

Notes: * p < .05; * * p < .01, *** p < .001

402 Z. FANG ET AL.
and long-term outcomes (creativity as measured by patents
and economic performance in a society as measured by
GDP per capita), thus, demonstrating their strong and con-
sistent predictive capacity.
Secular Orientation
The WVS factor, traditional/secular dimension (comparing
social groups in different religious traditions), was a significant
predictor of all student achievement outcomes. (Note: Survival/
self-expression also was predictive, but only to the GDP per
capita model.) On the traditional/secular scale, countries high on
the secular dimension tended to perform higher on the TIMSS
student achievement outcomes. Similarly, countries that scored
high on the self-expression dimension on the survival/self-
expression scale, tended to outperform those that scored on the
survival end of the scale in productivity. To illustrate, Sweden
showed high secular and self-expression scores, and addition-
ally, was high on student achievement, patents, and GDP per
capita. In contrast, Romania had high traditional and survival
scores with lower outcome scores in all domains. For additional
details, see Figure 1 for the relationship, country-by-country, and
between the traditional/secular dimension and GDP.
LTO
As noted earlier, LTO reflected future orientation versus
past and present orientation, with future orientation proving
to be more robust in terms of higher student achievement,
higher production of patents, and higher GDP per capita. To
illustrate, Singapore and Peru provide opposing examples of
the culture-outcomes relationships. Singapore was high on
LTO and high on all the outcome measures. Peru demon-
strated the opposite, with low LTO and low performance on
the outcome measures. For further details, see Figure 2 for a
FIGURE 1. Gross domestic product per capita related to WVS tradi-
tional/secular dimension.
scatterplot depicting the relationship between LTO and GDP
per capita. In combination, the association between the
various dimensions of national culture and educational out-
comes were found to be statistically significant. Depending
on the model, the variance explained ranged between 19.9%
and 76.0%.
National Culture, Creativity, and Economic
Performance in a Society
It is noteworthy that LTO was a uniformly good predictor
across all dependent variables tested in the regression ana-
lyses. LTO proved to be uniformly robust in predicting
higher student achievement, higher GDP per capita, and
higher patent production. However, the relationships were
not always perfectly linear and, in various ways, appeared
conflicting. In essence, there were exceptions to the overall
pattern that emerged. Specifically, the United States is char-
acterized as focusing on short-term outcomes according to
the Hofstede model and was scored in the low-to-moderate
range on LTO. In terms of LTO, the United States fit the
model quite well in terms of student achievement (which
also was low-to-moderate in national comparative terms).
However, in terms of GDP per capita, the United States was
quite high, falling below only northern European countries.
In terms of patents per 1,000 population, the United States
was at the very top. Consequently, the United States can be
characterized as lower on student achievement and higher
on creativity and productivity measures. Thus, on the two
long-term outcome measures that occur well beyond
immediate school achievement results, the United States
violated the general pattern that emerged, which was that
LTO was a significant predictor of student achievement,
creativity, and productivity.
FIGURE 2. Gross domestic product per capita related to Hofstede’s long-
term orientation dimension.

One possible explanation for the differences in US per-
formance regarding GDP per capita is that there was a
second significant predictor—IVR. And, in the case of
GDP per capita, a third variable—individualism—that
proved to be the most powerful predictor for the dependent
variable of productivity. As noted earlier, countries with
high indulgence (which proved to be the value in the IVR
paradigm that related to high performance) tended to
emphasize as a national cultural value the enjoyment—and
not the suppression—of living: gratifying human desires
related to enjoying life. Add to this the high IDV, which
focuses on acting within one’s culture with loosely-knit ties
among individuals and with individuals being responsible
for their own initiative, motivation, and outcomes, the US
performance doesn’t seem so surprising on the high GDP
per capita and high patent production variables. In fact, the
United States was among the highest of 60 countries
included in the model on both indulgence and individual-
ism. Among the 60 countries studied, the United States
ranked first on individualism and twelfth on indulgence.
Although success as a nation on various economic factors
—such as GDP per capita and patent production—require
quality education, it also places a premium on individual
initiative, creativity, responsibility, and accountability,
among others—all of which appear to be factors embedded
in the Hofstede IVR and IDV dimensions. Although,
clearly, there is a substantial need for US schooling to
improve, it also seems evident that the United States must
continue to foster its strong and deep traditions of self-
reliance and creativity, if its aim is to be a world leader in
creativity and productivity.
Interestingly, along with the LTO and traditional/secular
dimensions, IVR (a society that allows or suppresses the basic
and natural human desires and impulses) from the Hofstede
model is another significant predictor of creativity in a society.
Creativity is often associated with ideas and discoveries that are
fundamentally novel with respect to the whole of human history
(Fischer, Giaccardi, Eden, Sugimoto, & Ye, 2005). The rareness
or uniqueness of an idea comes from free thinking that well
could have been rejected by authority and dogma (Garfield,
Taylor, Dennis, & Satzinger, 2001).
In terms of IVR, North and South American countries
generally had high scores and lie close to the indulgence
pole that emphasizes more of a happy and relaxing life; Asia
countries score lower and stay near the restraint pole that
provides a relatively highly structured environment. East
Asia countries like China, South Korea, and Singapore had
test-driven education systems that emphasized high test
scores more than those found in more individualistic educa-
tional societies that tend to emphasize lifestyle and enjoy-
ment. When reviewing the connections between societal
production and these cultural norms, it became evident
that a suitable degree of indulgence and being relatively
free from highly uniform, restrictive social norms promotes
creativity. For example, the United States is seen as one of
NATIONAL CULTURE, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY 403
the most creative countries, as evidenced by the United
States having received the most Nobel laureates (approxi-
mately 34% of all Nobel prizes), most original patents, and
most scientific discoveries in the last 100+ years, and is also
the largest economy in the world, although is it far from the
most populous country in the world. In this sense, some
educational systems that are inevitably immersed in specific
cultures are not prone to foster creativity and, instead, tend
to inhibit, if not repress, creativity. Consequently, it could be
argued that in cultures that inhibit expression, gratification,
and individualism, schools and other social institutions tend
to gradually and inexorably stifle creative impulses.
Limitations of the Study
In this study, simplified culture models were used based on
the assumption of culture stability, but culture is a much
more complex concept in the real world. It is not static;
instead it is dynamic and changes over time. It is still a
pending answer to the question of whether culture is the
cause or the result of educational outcomes or economic
development. Given the complex reciprocal relationships
among culture, education, and economy, it would be reason-
able to suggest future research use longitudinal panel data to
explore how cultural values change through time and their
relationships with subsequent educational and economic
outcomes.
Because all of the available country data for both the
TIMSS and the cultural dimensions instruments that were
used, this study represents a restricted population study in
many regards. Essentially, there are no other countries that
can enter the sample because they are missing either the
TIMSS or cultural dimensions data. A concern that emerges
from this restriction is the small sample sizes that comprise
the analyses. General rules indicate that the sample size to
predictor ratio be somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1
(Maxwell, 2000). However, as noted by Maxwell and
others, these rules usually ignore the issue of statistical
power. As noted by Wampold and Freund (1987), adequate
sample sizes can be much lower than the 10:1 ratio if the
effect being detected is large enough. An analysis of the
power of the tests in this study using G*Power 3 (Faul,
Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) indicated that there was
sufficient power to detect at least moderate effects.
Additionally, this study used a particular set of variables to
measure the outcomes. The measures used in the study are
representative of the constructs being investigated but they are
not exhaustive. The current results should be replicated with
other measures of the constructs under investigation here. Also,
due to the exploratory nature and the small samples available,
the analyses were necessarily basic. Other more sophisticated
methods (SEM) might be used if larger samples can be obtained
in the future.
An additional note of caution relates to the use of the
measures selected to serve as a proxy for complex
404 Z. FANG ET AL.
constructs. For example, creativity can be measured in many
ways although patents are used here as a national-level
indicator of creativity. Interestingly, researchers in creativity
use the US Patent Office criteria in further defining this
construct (Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Simonton, 2012). In addi-
tion, there are methodological concerns in using GDP for
international comparisons. For example, the measuring of
actual hours can vary from country to country. However,
GDP per capita data are “typically used to compare living
standards across countries” (OECD, 2013, p. 17) and, thus,
were used in this study.
Finally, it should be noted that the relationships presented in
the study findings and discussion are largely correlational,
which does not suggest causality. The reality in studies of this
nature is that culture, education, and creativity/economic
growth, and other related variables of interest likely interact
with each other in a non-linear fashion. They influence and are
influenced by each other.
A FINAL WORD
The relationship between national culture and educational
achievement, both in long-term and short-term measures,
remains an elusive field to understand in terms of educa-
tional theory and practice. Perhaps Rousseau’s deep insights
as expressed in the first sentence of the Social Contract
(Rousseau, 1762), “Man is born free, and everywhere he
is in chains,” (p. 1) could be used to shed light on education.
Educational institutions are created to fulfill their educa-
tional objectives, but everywhere they are inevitably under
the influence of human culture.
This study, as presented in this article, demonstrates statisti-
cal correlations between national cultural dimensions and edu-
cational achievement, both in terms of short-term academic
achievement and long-term creativity and economic perfor-
mance in a society. Consequently, it seems reasonable to empha-
size awareness and the important of cultural differences as
reflected in educational systems. Clearly, culture influences
educational outcomes. It provides a unique way to understand
systematic similarities and differences of national educational
performances through a lens of worldwide point-of-view and
comparative outcomes. Schools and schooling are embedded in
their national cultural environments, which researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners, alike, can never neglect.
REFERENCES
Bereday, G. (1964). Sir Michael Sadler’s “study of foreign systems of educa-
tion”. Comparative Education Review, 9, 307–314.
Berger, N., & Fisher, P. (2013). A well-educated workforce is key to state
prosperity. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.
org/publication/states-education-productivity-growth-foundations//.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis
of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological
Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., & Amoros, J. (2012). Global entrepreneurship
monitor: 2011 extended report: Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial
employees across the globe. London, UK: Global Entrepreneurship
Research Association.
Cicero, M. T. (1927). Tusculan disputations. London, UK: William
Heinemann. (Original work published 45BC).
Cowen, R. (2009). One history and on the creation of comparative educa-
tion. In R. Cowen, & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of
comparative education (pp. 7–10). New York, NY: Springer.
Cox, P. L., Friedman, B. A., & Tribunella, T. (2011). Relationships among
cultural dimensions, national gross domestic product, and environmental
sustainability. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(6), 46–56.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected
works of Mihaly Csikscentmihalyi. New York, NY: Springer.
de Mooij, M. (2004). Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for
global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers.
Academy of Management Journal, 10, 53–68. doi:10.2307/255244
Fang, Z., Grant, L. W., Xu, X., Stronge, J. H., & Ward, T. J. (2013). An
international comparison investigating the relationship between national
culture and student achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 25(3), 159–177. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9171-0
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power
analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression ana-
lyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/
BRM.41.4.1149
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005).
Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 482–512.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014
Franke, R. H., Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1991). Cultural roots of
economic performance: A research note. Strategic Management
Journal, 12(S1), 165–173. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120912
Garfield, M. J., Taylor, N. J., Dennis, A. R., & Satzinger, J. W. (2001).
Research report: Modifying paradigms–individual differences, creativity
techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information
Systems Research, 12, 322–333. doi:10.1287/isre.12.3.322.9710
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G., (2010), Culture, institutions and the wealth of
nations (NBER Working Paper No. 16368). Retrieved December 30, 2014,
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16368
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect eco-
nomic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23–48.
doi:10.1257/jep.20.2.23
Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1966). Managerial thinking: An
international study. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The high cost of low educa-
tional performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA
outcomes. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and
medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Aldershot,
Hants., London, UK: Ashgate.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences, international differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, beha-
viors, instituions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its
importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hoppe, M. H. (1998). Validating the masculinity/femininity dimensions on
elites from nineteen countries. In G. Hofstede, & Associates (Eds.),

Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures
(pp. 29–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, J. D., & Telese, J. A. (2008). Relationships between student and
instructional factors and algebra achievement of students in the United
States and Japan: An analysis of TIMSS 2003 data. Educational
Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and
Practice, 14(1), 101–112. doi:10.1080/13803610801896679
Huber, J. C. (1998). Invention and inventivity is a random, Poisson process:
A potential guide to analysis of general creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 11, 231–241. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1103_3
IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0.
Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, eco-
nomic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the
persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1),
19–51. doi:10.2307/2657288
Kaasa, A., & Vadi, M. (2010). How does culture contribute to innovation?
Evidence from European countries. Economics of Innovations and New
Technology, 19, 583–604. doi:10.1080/10438590902987222
Kagan, S. L., & Stewart, V. (2004). International education in schools: The state
of the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 229–241. doi:10.1177/
003172170408600312
Kharkhurin, A. V., & Motalleebi, S. N. S. (2008). The impact of culture on the
creative potential of American, Russian, and Iranian college students.
Creativity Research Journal, 20, 404–411. doi:10.1080/10400410802391835
Kim, K. H., Lee, H. E., Chae, K., Anderson, L., & Laurence, C. (2011). Creativity
and Confucianism among American and Korean educators. Creativity
Research Journal, 23, 357–371. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.621853
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating
Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37, 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of
concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of
American Archeology and Ethnology Papers, Harvard University.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, R. (1954). An empirical investigation of self
attitudes. American Sociological Review., 19, 68–76. doi:10.2307/2088175
Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong
and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297–325.
doi:10.1007/BF01273909
Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identify in a mathematics
education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 35–51. doi:10.1023/
A:1017936429620
Li, Y., & Shimizu, Y. (2009). Exemplary mathematics instruction and its
development in selected education systems in East Asia. International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 257–262.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Lubart, T. I., & Georgsdottir, A. (2004). Creativity: Development and cross-
cultural issues. In S. Lau, A. N. Hui, & G. Y. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When
east meets west. Singapore: World Scientific.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis.
Psychological Methods, 5, 434–458. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.434
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Mouritzen, P. E., & Svara, J. H. (2002). Leadership at the apex: Politicians
and administrators in western local governments. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
NATIONAL CULTURE, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY 405
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome:
Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1),
27. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
Ng, A. K. (2003). A cultural model of creative and confirming behavior.
Creativity Research Journal, 15, 223–233. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2003.9651414
OECD. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long
run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/pisa/44417824.pdf
OECD. (2013). OECD compendium of productivity indicators 2013. Paris,
France: Author. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/pdtvy-2013-en
Parsons, T. (1973). The structure of social action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Planel, C. (1997). National cultural values and their role in learning: A
comparative ethnographic study of state primary schooling in England
and France. Comparative Education, 33, 349–373. doi:10.1080/
03050069728415
Plant, M., & Welch, F. (1984). Measuring the impact of education on
productivity. In E. Dean (Ed.), Education and economic productivity
(pp. 163–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Ramirez, F., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2006). Student achievement
and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113, 1–
29. doi:10.1086/506492
Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2013). The role of Hofstede’s
individualism in national-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
25, 129–136. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752293
Roberts, P. (1975). Reviewed work: culture and the educative process: An
anthropological perspective by Solon T. Kimball. School Review, 83,
719–722. doi:10.1086/443232
Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The social contract. Retrieved from http://www.
earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rudowicz, E., & Ng, T. T. S. (2003). On Ng’s why Asians are less creative
than westerners. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 301–302. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2003.9651423
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.650092
Sadler, M. (1900). Study of foreign systems of education. Guildford,
England: Survey Advertiser Office.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodol-
ogies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational
Research Methods, 6, 169–215. doi:10.1177/1094428103251542
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C.
Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, meth-
ods and applications (pp. 85–119). London, UK: Sage.
Shane, S. A. (1995). Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innova-
tion championing roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 26,
47–68. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490165
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office seriously: A quanti-
tative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 97–106. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
Smith, G. (1933). The diffusion of culture. London, UK: Watts.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1989). The self and the instrumental model in
the study of culture change. Proceedings of the Kroeber Anthropological
Society, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring
culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the
analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of
International Management, 15, 357–373. doi:10.1016/j.
intman.2008.08.005
The Economist. (2013, January 19). Testing education: PISA envy.
Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/international/
21569689-research-comparing-educational-achievement-between-coun
tries-growing-drawing
406 Z. FANG ET AL.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2013a). About TIMSS and
PIRLS. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/home/
pdf/TP_About.pdf
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2013b). TIMSS 2011 inter-
national database. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/interna
tional-database.html
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diver-
sity in global business. Chicago, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a
cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American
Psychologist, 57, 89–99. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.89
Tylor, E. (1920). Primitive culture. New York, NY: J. P. Putnam’s Sons.
(Original work published 1871)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). (2013). Patent counts by
country, state, and year – Utility patents. Retrieved from http://www.
uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm.
Walberg, H. J., & Stariha, W. E. (1992). Productive human capital:
Learning, creativity, and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 5,
323–340. doi:10.1080/10400419209534445
Wampold, B. E., & Freund, R. D. (1987). Use of multiple regression in
counseling psychology research: A flexible data-analytic strategy. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 34, 372–382. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.372
Williams, L. K., & McGuire, S. J. (2010). Economic creativity and innova-
tion implementation: The entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence
from 63 countries. Small Business Economics, 34, 391–412. doi:10.1007/
s11187-008-9145-7
World Bank. (2013). GDP per capita (current US$). Retrieved from http://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
World Values Survey (WVS). (2008a). National-level Value scores by
country. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/
folder_published/article_base_111
World Values Survey (WVS). (2008b). Values change the world. Retrieved
from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/
article_base_110/files/WVSbrochure6-2008_11.pdf
Xu, X., Popp, P., Stronge, J., & Kang, A. (2012). Comparison of academic
achievement in Virginia with leading industrialized nations. Richmond, VA:
Virginia Commission on Youth.
Zha, P., Walczyk, J. J., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Tobacyk, J. J., & Walczyk, D.
F. (2006). The impact of culture and individualism-collectivism on the
creative potential and achievement of American and Chinese adults.
Creativity Research Journal, 18, 355–366. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1803_10
Zhao, Y. (2012). Flunking innovation and creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan,
94(1), 56–61. doi:10.1177/003172171209400111