Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames

Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, cou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality and social psychology 2018-03, Vol.114 (3), p.443-464
Main Authors: Leung, Angela K.-y, Liou, Shyhnan, Miron-Spektor, Ella, Koh, Brandon, Chan, David, Eisenberg, Roni, Schneider, Iris
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambiguity
Conflict
Conflicts
Creativity
Critical thinking
Cross Cultural Differences
Cross cultural studies
Cultural differences
Differences
Endorsements
Female
Human
Individual Differences
Male
Test Construction
Thinking
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-acb3194194d6368c6cd587f4b2e511e2cf93fe5aaf0a66c1b310df115650123f3
cites
container_end_page 464
container_issue 3
container_start_page 443
container_title Journal of personality and social psychology
container_volume 114
creator Leung, Angela K.-y
Liou, Shyhnan
Miron-Spektor, Ella
Koh, Brandon
Chan, David
Eisenberg, Roni
Schneider, Iris
description Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, could produce creative benefits. We extended the timely, but understudied, topic by studying the nuances of for whom and why creative advantages of paradoxical frames emerge. We suggest that people endorsing a middle ground approach are less likely to scrutinize conflict and reconcile with integrative solutions, thus receiving less creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Five studies that examined individual and cultural differences in middle ground endorsement support our theory. Study 1 found that paradoxical frames increased creativity, but failed to replicate that experienced conflict mediated the relationship in a Taiwanese sample. In both within- and between-culture analysis, we showed that the creative advantages of thinking paradoxically and experiencing conflict emerged among individuals who endorse lower (vs. higher) levels of middle ground (Study 2) and among Israelis whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground strategy less, but not among Singaporeans whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground more (Study 3). Study 4 further demonstrated the causal role of middle ground in the paradox-conflict-creativity link. To answer "why," Study 5 situationally induced integrative complex thinking that sets distinctions and forms syntheses among contradictory elements, and found that low endorsers of middle ground performed more creatively when they engaged integrative complex thinking to cope with paradoxes. This program of studies offers important insights on harnessing paradoxical experiences to catalyze creativity.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/pspp0000160
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1928786003</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1928786003</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-acb3194194d6368c6cd587f4b2e511e2cf93fe5aaf0a66c1b310df115650123f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90UuLFDEUBeAgitOOrtxLwI2gpbl5VFe5G5uZURjRheIy3E7d0BnqZZLS6X9vmm5FXJhNEvLlkHAYewriNQi1fjOneRZlQC3usRW0qq1AgbnPVkJIWSkD-ow9Sum2GG2kfMjOZNMIo4Vcsf3H0HU98es4LWPHL-Y5Tuh2PE_8M0bspru3_FvIuzBWHAt4R_kn0Vhtlj4vkfjlHQ5hxBymkU-e5x3xTaSy_0HFjuRDToeDU1hw2POriAOlx-yBxz7Rk9N8zr5eXX7ZvK9uPl1_2FzcVKihzRW6rYK2LHVXq7pxtetMs_Z6K8kAkHS-VZ4MohdY1w6KFp0HMLURIJVX5-zFMbf87PtCKdshJEd9jyNNS7LQymbd1EKoQp__Q2-nJY7ldVYCrM1aN7r-nzpktSAb0EW9PCoXp5QieTvHMGDcWxD20Jv9q7ein50yl-1A3R_7u6gCXh0Bzlhu7h3GHFxPyS0x0pgPaRZAW2W1VuoXdkeh2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1928912814</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Leung, Angela K.-y ; Liou, Shyhnan ; Miron-Spektor, Ella ; Koh, Brandon ; Chan, David ; Eisenberg, Roni ; Schneider, Iris</creator><contributor>Cooper, M. Lynne</contributor><creatorcontrib>Leung, Angela K.-y ; Liou, Shyhnan ; Miron-Spektor, Ella ; Koh, Brandon ; Chan, David ; Eisenberg, Roni ; Schneider, Iris ; Cooper, M. Lynne</creatorcontrib><description>Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, could produce creative benefits. We extended the timely, but understudied, topic by studying the nuances of for whom and why creative advantages of paradoxical frames emerge. We suggest that people endorsing a middle ground approach are less likely to scrutinize conflict and reconcile with integrative solutions, thus receiving less creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Five studies that examined individual and cultural differences in middle ground endorsement support our theory. Study 1 found that paradoxical frames increased creativity, but failed to replicate that experienced conflict mediated the relationship in a Taiwanese sample. In both within- and between-culture analysis, we showed that the creative advantages of thinking paradoxically and experiencing conflict emerged among individuals who endorse lower (vs. higher) levels of middle ground (Study 2) and among Israelis whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground strategy less, but not among Singaporeans whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground more (Study 3). Study 4 further demonstrated the causal role of middle ground in the paradox-conflict-creativity link. To answer "why," Study 5 situationally induced integrative complex thinking that sets distinctions and forms syntheses among contradictory elements, and found that low endorsers of middle ground performed more creatively when they engaged integrative complex thinking to cope with paradoxes. This program of studies offers important insights on harnessing paradoxical experiences to catalyze creativity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3514</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000160</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28805402</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Ambiguity ; Conflict ; Conflicts ; Creativity ; Critical thinking ; Cross Cultural Differences ; Cross cultural studies ; Cultural differences ; Differences ; Endorsements ; Female ; Human ; Individual Differences ; Male ; Test Construction ; Thinking</subject><ispartof>Journal of personality and social psychology, 2018-03, Vol.114 (3), p.443-464</ispartof><rights>2017 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>(c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).</rights><rights>2018, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Mar 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-acb3194194d6368c6cd587f4b2e511e2cf93fe5aaf0a66c1b310df115650123f3</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-2302-9941 ; 0000-0002-6250-8307</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,31034,33258,33809</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28805402$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Cooper, M. Lynne</contributor><creatorcontrib>Leung, Angela K.-y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liou, Shyhnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miron-Spektor, Ella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koh, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenberg, Roni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Iris</creatorcontrib><title>Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames</title><title>Journal of personality and social psychology</title><addtitle>J Pers Soc Psychol</addtitle><description>Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, could produce creative benefits. We extended the timely, but understudied, topic by studying the nuances of for whom and why creative advantages of paradoxical frames emerge. We suggest that people endorsing a middle ground approach are less likely to scrutinize conflict and reconcile with integrative solutions, thus receiving less creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Five studies that examined individual and cultural differences in middle ground endorsement support our theory. Study 1 found that paradoxical frames increased creativity, but failed to replicate that experienced conflict mediated the relationship in a Taiwanese sample. In both within- and between-culture analysis, we showed that the creative advantages of thinking paradoxically and experiencing conflict emerged among individuals who endorse lower (vs. higher) levels of middle ground (Study 2) and among Israelis whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground strategy less, but not among Singaporeans whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground more (Study 3). Study 4 further demonstrated the causal role of middle ground in the paradox-conflict-creativity link. To answer "why," Study 5 situationally induced integrative complex thinking that sets distinctions and forms syntheses among contradictory elements, and found that low endorsers of middle ground performed more creatively when they engaged integrative complex thinking to cope with paradoxes. This program of studies offers important insights on harnessing paradoxical experiences to catalyze creativity.</description><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Conflicts</subject><subject>Creativity</subject><subject>Critical thinking</subject><subject>Cross Cultural Differences</subject><subject>Cross cultural studies</subject><subject>Cultural differences</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Endorsements</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Individual Differences</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Test Construction</subject><subject>Thinking</subject><issn>0022-3514</issn><issn>1939-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp90UuLFDEUBeAgitOOrtxLwI2gpbl5VFe5G5uZURjRheIy3E7d0BnqZZLS6X9vmm5FXJhNEvLlkHAYewriNQi1fjOneRZlQC3usRW0qq1AgbnPVkJIWSkD-ow9Sum2GG2kfMjOZNMIo4Vcsf3H0HU98es4LWPHL-Y5Tuh2PE_8M0bspru3_FvIuzBWHAt4R_kn0Vhtlj4vkfjlHQ5hxBymkU-e5x3xTaSy_0HFjuRDToeDU1hw2POriAOlx-yBxz7Rk9N8zr5eXX7ZvK9uPl1_2FzcVKihzRW6rYK2LHVXq7pxtetMs_Z6K8kAkHS-VZ4MohdY1w6KFp0HMLURIJVX5-zFMbf87PtCKdshJEd9jyNNS7LQymbd1EKoQp__Q2-nJY7ldVYCrM1aN7r-nzpktSAb0EW9PCoXp5QieTvHMGDcWxD20Jv9q7ein50yl-1A3R_7u6gCXh0Bzlhu7h3GHFxPyS0x0pgPaRZAW2W1VuoXdkeh2g</recordid><startdate>201803</startdate><enddate>201803</enddate><creator>Leung, Angela K.-y</creator><creator>Liou, Shyhnan</creator><creator>Miron-Spektor, Ella</creator><creator>Koh, Brandon</creator><creator>Chan, David</creator><creator>Eisenberg, Roni</creator><creator>Schneider, Iris</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2302-9941</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6250-8307</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201803</creationdate><title>Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames</title><author>Leung, Angela K.-y ; Liou, Shyhnan ; Miron-Spektor, Ella ; Koh, Brandon ; Chan, David ; Eisenberg, Roni ; Schneider, Iris</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-acb3194194d6368c6cd587f4b2e511e2cf93fe5aaf0a66c1b310df115650123f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Conflicts</topic><topic>Creativity</topic><topic>Critical thinking</topic><topic>Cross Cultural Differences</topic><topic>Cross cultural studies</topic><topic>Cultural differences</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Endorsements</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Individual Differences</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Test Construction</topic><topic>Thinking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leung, Angela K.-y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liou, Shyhnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miron-Spektor, Ella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koh, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenberg, Roni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Iris</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leung, Angela K.-y</au><au>Liou, Shyhnan</au><au>Miron-Spektor, Ella</au><au>Koh, Brandon</au><au>Chan, David</au><au>Eisenberg, Roni</au><au>Schneider, Iris</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle><addtitle>J Pers Soc Psychol</addtitle><date>2018-03</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>443</spage><epage>464</epage><pages>443-464</pages><issn>0022-3514</issn><eissn>1939-1315</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, could produce creative benefits. We extended the timely, but understudied, topic by studying the nuances of for whom and why creative advantages of paradoxical frames emerge. We suggest that people endorsing a middle ground approach are less likely to scrutinize conflict and reconcile with integrative solutions, thus receiving less creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Five studies that examined individual and cultural differences in middle ground endorsement support our theory. Study 1 found that paradoxical frames increased creativity, but failed to replicate that experienced conflict mediated the relationship in a Taiwanese sample. In both within- and between-culture analysis, we showed that the creative advantages of thinking paradoxically and experiencing conflict emerged among individuals who endorse lower (vs. higher) levels of middle ground (Study 2) and among Israelis whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground strategy less, but not among Singaporeans whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground more (Study 3). Study 4 further demonstrated the causal role of middle ground in the paradox-conflict-creativity link. To answer "why," Study 5 situationally induced integrative complex thinking that sets distinctions and forms syntheses among contradictory elements, and found that low endorsers of middle ground performed more creatively when they engaged integrative complex thinking to cope with paradoxes. This program of studies offers important insights on harnessing paradoxical experiences to catalyze creativity.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>28805402</pmid><doi>10.1037/pspp0000160</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2302-9941</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6250-8307</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3514
ispartof Journal of personality and social psychology, 2018-03, Vol.114 (3), p.443-464
issn 0022-3514
1939-1315
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1928786003
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Ambiguity
Conflict
Conflicts
Creativity
Critical thinking
Cross Cultural Differences
Cross cultural studies
Cultural differences
Differences
Endorsements
Female
Human
Individual Differences
Male
Test Construction
Thinking
title Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T20%3A01%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Middle%20Ground%20Approach%20to%20Paradox:%20Within-%20and%20Between-Culture%20Examination%20of%20the%20Creative%20Benefits%20of%20Paradoxical%20Frames&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personality%20and%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Leung,%20Angela%20K.-y&rft.date=2018-03&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=443&rft.epage=464&rft.pages=443-464&rft.issn=0022-3514&rft.eissn=1939-1315&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/pspp0000160&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1928786003%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-acb3194194d6368c6cd587f4b2e511e2cf93fe5aaf0a66c1b310df115650123f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1928912814&rft_id=info:pmid/28805402&rfr_iscdi=true