Which Chinese Creators are Famous and why: Views from Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese Students

Journal of Creative Behavior

177 Volume 41 Number 3 Third Quarter 2007

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

C H A U - K I U C H E U N G , P H . D .X I A O D O N G Y U E , P H . D .

Which Chinese creatorsare famous and why:Views from Hong Kong andMainland Chinese students

The list of recognized creators is constantly changing with thepassage of time. An up-to-date list of recognized Chinesecreators emerges from a survey of a large sample of Chinesestudents in various places in China. To understand the sustain-ability of the creators’ fame, this study examines how thecreators’ personal characteristics affect their fame, creativity,social contribution, and esteem, based on the students’ view-points. Results show that scientists, compared with other pro-fessionals, consistently maintained higher fame, creativity, andsocial contribution. This finding is consistent with the empha-sis on science, rationality, and objectivity in modern educa-tion as well as the meritorious evaluation bias in perceivingthe utility of creativity in Chinese society. The creator’s cre-ativity showed an inverted-U shaped relationship to fame.Hence, a moderate level of creativity was associated withthe highest fame in the creator. There were some differencesbetween Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese students’ percep-tions of the sustainability of fame, which is largely attributableto the influence of commercialism in Hong Kong.

The study of the famed creative Chinese is important forstudents because they will become forerunners for the eco-nomic and political progress of a country (Inglehart, 1997),such as China (Li, 2001). Students are typically competent,zealous, and socially responsible to innovate and accomplishgreat success for society (Terenzini et al., 1993). They com-monly participate in progressive social movements, which pre-pare their personal growth and civic engagement in society(Conway, 1990). Meanwhile, students need to learn from and

178

Which Chinese creators are famous and why:Views from Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese students

model after significant others to enhance their competence(Reed, 1995). Creative people are important role models forstudents to learn and emulate. Identifying famous creators andtheir attributes, as judged by students anticipates the path tofuture development.

The present study seeks to identify the most noted creativeChinese throughout Chinese history and to verify claims aris-ing from past research and theory about the formation of cre-ativity and fame in Chinese society. The verification is fruitfulbecause this study approaches the issue from an angle differ-ent from that in the past. Whereas previous studies tend toemploy archival data (Collins, 1998; Moneta, 1993; Simonton,1999), the present study draws on data provided by Chinesestudents themselves. Although students are not as knowledge-able as are experts, their judgments of creativity and merit canbe credible (Cohen, 2003). The individual’s perception aboutother people is oftentimes more important than these people’sreal performance in influencing the individual (de Haan &MacDermid, 1996). Alternatively, people recognized as creativeare more influential than people who are creative but obscure.

Students’ perceptions of creativity and of creative peopleare important concerns for implicit or lay theory (Lim & Plucker,2001). According to the phenomenological view, the layper-son is likely to construct his or her theory about creativity thatmay deviate from the expert’s theory. This theory can providea guideline for the individual to assess oneself and others, suchas forming a sense of accomplishment (Mouchiroud & Lubart,2001). Apparently, implicit theories of creativity among Chi-nese are similar to those among Western people (Rudowicz &Hui, 1997). These people commonly regard originality,innovativeness, flexibility, and imagination as creative quali-ties (Cropley, 2000; Moneta & Siu, 2002). The exception is thatChinese people tend to ignore humor and artistic/aestheticappreciation as qualities of creativity (Rudowicz & Yue 2000).In contrast, Chinese people tend to regard social contributionor merit as a characteristic of creators (Rudowicz & Hui, 1997).

Fame typically accrues to people who are creative, merito-rious, and esteemed (Simonton, 1984). Creative people arethose who make something novel, original, adaptive, andappropriate, as recognized by other people (Sawyer, 1999;Simonton, 1998a). They are usually influential over their lifespan (Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001). Perceived merit is an es-sential component of greatness and is usually manifest in theperson’s leadership for the whole society or even civilization

Fame, Creativity,Merit, and Esteem


179

(Andeweg & Van Den Berg, 2003; Crew, 1998; Simonton,1998c, 2001b). Meritorious people are often problem solvers,good at relationship building, charismatic leading, and mak-ing significant decisions for the society (Mumford et al., 2000;Simonton, 1984; Sogunro, 1997). Creative and meritoriouspeople are likely to become the esteemed idols for personalidentification and attachment (Adams-Price & Greene, 1990).Creative, meritorious, and esteemed people are usually famouspeople who earn recognition from a large number of people(Schwartz, 1998). Famous people are supposedly influentialboth positively and negatively, when infamous people cancause great havoc to society (Simonton, 1998c).

Modernization describes a process of social change towardrational acceptance of new ideas to boost standards of living(Brand, 1999; Venkatesh, 1999). It emphasizes the applicationof science to everyday life to boost productivity and materialprosperity (Best & Kellner, 2001). Science is a rational enter-prise aiming at maximizing objective value based on system-atic calculation (Habermas, 1981). It is responsible formomentous growth in economic and other objective aspectsthat characterizes the modernized society (Mouzelis, 1999).Apart from broadening life chances, modernization fosterscultural change that culminates in the emphasis on science,rationality, and objectivity as the modern ethos (Rojek, 1995).This ethos gives great credit to scientific achievement. Thus,creativity and merit in science would be appealing to people inmodern society (Best & Kellner, 2001). It underlies moderneducation, which especially accentuates science education toconsolidate students’ trust in science and scientists (Schibeci& Lee, 2003). Therefore, scientists tend to be at an advanta-geous position in creativity, merit, and fame recognized bymodern people. This modernist preference is particularlysalient among people with higher education and intelligence,who trust science and its achievement (Lloyd-Bostock, 1979;Jing et al., 1995). Chinese students seem to treasure the cre-ativity and merit of scientists particularly (Yue, 2003, 2004).

The thesis of modernization also suggests that peoplereputed in religion, philosophy, arts, exploration, and othertraditional fields of excellence might become less recognizedfor creativity, fame, and esteem among students nowadays,because of secularization (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Traditionalkinds of achievement would lose their significance, owing tothe disenchantment process concomitant with modernization(Schroeder & Dugal, 1995). Disenchantment describes the

Impacts ofModernization

180


decline of faith in traditional and mystic forces. It discontinuesmodern people’s preference for religious, artistic, literary, andphilosophical achievements in the past, and replaces it withmodern concern (Brand, 1999). In this connection, rational-ization ascends as a modern theme that pays tribute to science.

A modern and probably postmodern development is theentertainment industry. Pop stars are likely to occupy an envi-able place in young people’s judgments of esteem, creativity,fame, and even merit (Morrison, 1995; Schultze et al., 1991).The extraordinary performance and talent of pop stars areespecially appealing to young people, who are ready to regardthe stars as creative (McCutcheon et al., 2003). Moreover, theentertainment industry in the modern, capitalist world helpspromote the sense of merit among the young audience (Giles,2000). At least, pop stars are famous among young peoplethrough peer interaction, which reinforces one another’s infatu-ation with pop stars (Turner & Scherman, 1996). That pop starsare also clearly popular among university students as well assecondary school students is largely a function of commer-cialism (Cheung & Yue, 2000, 2003, 2004). Commercialismis an emphasis on the pursuit of profit by promoting and sell-ing profitable commodities, including sport and art perfor-mances (Frey & Eitzen, 1991). For this aim, business peopleendeavor to create enduring demand among consumersthrough such a means of idolizing their commodities to se-cure their consumers’ adherence. Young consumers, becauseof their desire for identification with heroes (Greene & Adams-Price, 1990), are likely targets for the commercial promotionof pop idols (Schultze et al., 1991).

Fame, in relation to creativity, may build on the person’sjudged creativity, merit, and esteem. However, fame is not nec-essarily completely tied to those attributes in view of the dis-tinction between laypeople and creative people. This distinctionis reminiscent of the distinction between popular arts and high-brow arts. While highbrow arts may be deemed more creativelyartistic than popular arts, they attain less broad popularity (VanEijck, 2001). For the large majority of people, mundaneachievement might be more recognizable and attractive thanwould achievement that is highly creative and meritorious.Conversely, creative individuals who enjoy higher esteemamong students are not necessarily higher on fame for theircreativity. Therefore, there would be distinction among fame,creativity, merit, and esteem.

Impacts of Creativityand Merit


181

One possibility is a curvilinear relationship, or more specifi-cally, an inverted-U shaped relationship between creativity andfame (Simonton, 1984). Specifically, creators with moderatedegrees of creativity would have the highest fame. Whereaslow creativity would not contribute much to fame, overly highcreativity would be eccentric and unnoticeable to mostlaypeople. This relationship would comply with the model ofoptimal arousal, which explains the highest reputation of ar-tistic products by their moderate originality (Simonton, 1984).

Creative people tend to be more famous when they are moremeritorious. This is because people have a preference for merit,and as such regard an individual as famous and creative sim-ply due to the individual’s merit (Heinzen, 1995). Chinesepeople prove to demonstrate this meritorious bias in their nomi-nation of creative people and view fame with a “whoever isinfluential is creative” theme (Yue, 2003, 2004).

Summing up, the impact of creativity on fame appears tobe greater for one who is more meritorious. One mechanismof this effect is the wider dissemination of the creative productby a creator who is more meritorious. It reflects the logic thatone who is powerful is more capable of creating one’s fame(Simonton, 1994). In this connection, one’s power or socialstatus tends to arise from one’s merit or social contribution(Cohen, 2003). Another possibility is the cumulative advan-tage accruing to creators who excel in both creativity and merit(Simonton, 1984). As such, those already notable for socialcontribution would readily attract people’s recognition.

Overall, the above discussion of modernization and its dif-ferences between Hong Kong and Mainland China suggeststhe importance of focusing on following issues: (1) the impactof modernization, regarding scientists’ advantages in ratingsof creativity, merit, esteem, and fame; (2) the relationship be-tween rated creativity and fame; (3) the relationship betweenrated merit and fame; (4) the joint relationship between thefactors of rated creativity and merit and fame; (5) the differ-ences in these relationships between Hong Kong and Main-land China. Information relevant to these five issues woulddeepen the understanding of not only the relationship betweencreativity and fame in general but also patterns of perceivingcreative people in Chinese societies. Whereas past researchhas gauged the genesis of Chinese creators in the past(Simonton, 1996), this study taps the sustainable influence ofthe creators on Chinese today. Because of the possibility thatthe fame of some creators, like geniuses, may be enduring

Research Questions

182


whereas others’ fame is transient (Smith & Wright, 2000), it isimportant to verify if creativity, merit, and esteem contributeto creators’ fame.

A person’s demographic profile tends to influence howfamous, creative, meritorious, and esteemed the person is inothers’ mind. The demographic factors typically include sex,years of life, and dates of birth and death. Apparently, famouspeople and creators are predominantly male, which may re-sult from the different social roles of men and women (Eysenck,1995). People with longer lives tend to be more eminent due totheir cumulative production (Simonton, 1999). Conceivably,when a person is more productive, his or her chance ofbecoming creative and famous increases. Similarly, one whomakes achievement at younger age would have a longer suc-cessful career, make more accomplishments, and earn morereputation (Simonton, 1998c). However, a person whose timeof living is more recent would be more famous (Cohen, 2003).Recognition of people living in the remote past tends to fadeaway (Schwartz, 1998). These demographic characteristicstend to differ among eminent people in different fields. Forinstance, writers tend to have achievement at younger age andlive a life shorter than do scientists (Cassandro, 1998).

A roster of 252 Chinese creators emerged from nomination by2,845 Chinese students surveyed in 2000 to 2002. Thesestudents consisted of 819 secondary school students and2,026 university students. Among the secondary school stu-dents, 343 (53.6% female) were in Hong Kong, 160 (56.9%female) in Suzhou, and 316 (46.2% female) in Xian. Amongthe university students, 970 (45.0% female) were in Hong Kong,166 (47.8% female) in Guangzhou, 128 (27.6% female) inNanchang, 201 (39.5% female) in Nanjing, 362 (74.2% female)in Suzhou, and 199 (26.6% female) in Xian. The schools oruniversities of the students spread across the territory of China.The 252 Chinese creators were the units of analysis in thepresent study. Selection of the five Chinese cities was to repre-sent the diverse populations in China, with Hong Kong repre-senting Southearn China, Nanjing and Suzhou representingEastern China, Nanchang representing Central China and Xianrepresenting Western China. The five cities are all large, met-ropolitan ones in China.

Each student was required to nominate up to three historicalor contemporary Chinese people whom the student regardedas the most creative. Then, the student would also rate the

DemographicInfluences

METHODS


183

creativity, social contribution, and esteem of each nominatedcreators on a 1-10 scale. The student responded to the follow-ing questions: (1) “How creative is the creator?” (2) “Howmuch does the creator contribute to society?” (3) “Howmuch do you esteem the creator?” A score of 10 representedthe highest rating. The means of ratings by Hong Kong stu-dents, Mainland students, and all students gave the scores ofcreativity, social contribution, and esteem for each creatoraccording to Hong Kong and Mainland students, and allChinese students respectively (Yue, 2003, 2004).

In the present study, the creator’s fame referred to the num-ber of nominations made by students, in a way similar to thepast studies of public perceptions (Schwartz, 1998). There werenominations given by Hong Kong students, Mainland students,and all Chinese students. Because the distributions of the nomi-nations showed a positive skew (with few having high scores),log-transformation was necessary to make the scores lessskewed, thus appropriate for analysis. Besides, encyclopedicdata were available for each selected creator, including the fieldof eminence, date of birth, date of death, date at making thefirst remarkable achievement, age at making this achievement,years of life and sex (Chen, 1993; Liao, Luo & Fan, 1990; Ma,1993). Each creator had a field of eminence falling into one ofthe 11 categories: (1) entertainment, (2) political, (3) military,(4) scientific, (5) literary, (6) artistic, (7) philosophical, (8)exploring, (9) religious, (10) business, and (11) fictional (Yue,2003, 2004). Two coders coded all creators. They exhibitedan inter-coder reliability of .93 (in terms of kappa coefficient).Entertainment creators consisted of pop stars, directors, art-ists, and singers; political creators were emperors, premiers,other officials, and revolutionaries; military creators were gen-erals and strategists; literary creators were writers, novelists,and poets; artistic creators were composers and painters; philo-sophical creators were philosophers; exploring creators weretravelers and surveyors; religious creators were Buddhistpriests; business creators were entrepreneurs; and fictionalcreators were characters in literature and the mass media whoexcelled at various fields. In case a creator was eminent inmultiple areas, the creator received a score of 1 for each ofthese areas. For instance, Mao Zedong (1893-1976) was aneminent politicians, strategist, and philosopher.

Outcome variables for regression analysis included thecreator’s fame, creativity, social contribution, and esteem. Thelatter three variables were also predictors of fame in this study.

184


In regression analysis of fame, the first step involved the back-ground factors only. The second step added creativity, socialcontribution, and esteem as predictors. In the third step, thesquare of creativity and the interaction between creativity andsocial contribution were additional predictors. Regressionanalysis separately involved fame, creativity, social contribu-tion, and esteem arising from Hong Kong students, Mainlandstudents, and all Chinese students.

The nominated Chinese creators in both Hong Kong and theMainland were predominantly male (90.3%, see Table 1). Theearliest Chinese creator was Huang Di (circa 3200 B.C.), whowas supposedly the first recorded ruler of China. The latestChinese creator was Han Han (1982-), who is a contemporarywriter and made his first renowned achievement at the age of

RESULTS

TABLE 1. Means and standard deviations of attributes.

Hong Kong Mainland All(n = 141) (n = 195) (N = 252)

Attribute M SD M SD M SD

Female (%) 7.2 25.9 9.3 29.2 9.7 29.6

Birth year 1263.7 847.6 1364.6 778.8 1378.5 770.2

Death year 973.6 849.1 1229.2 845.3 1213.5 834.7

Year at achievement 1172.5 1169.7 1163.9 1189.0 1243.5 1108.2

Age at achievement (year) 35.9 10.4 36.3 9.5 36.1 10.0

Length of life (year) 63.6 14.7 64.9 17.3 64.9 17.3

Political (%) 27.9 45.0 30.6 46.2 29.0 45.4

Literary (%) 20.7 40.7 23.8 42.7 23.2 42.3

Scientific (%) 14.3 35.1 19.7 39.9 17.0 37.6

Entertainment (%) 17.1 37.8 6.2 24.2 11.6 32.1

Military (%) 6.4 24.6 7.8 26.8 7.7 26.7

Artistic (%) 5.7 23.3 6.2 24.2 6.9 25.5

Philosophical (%) 6.4 24.6 6.2 24.2 5.0 21.9

Business (%) 2.9 16.7 3.1 17.4 2.3 15.1

Fictional (%) 2.1 14.5 1.6 12.4 1.5 12.4

Religious (%) 0.7 8.5 1.6 12.4 1.2 10.7

Exploring (%) 0.7 8.5 1.0 10.2 0.8 8.8


185

18. On average, the Chinese creator had his or her first achieve-ment at the age of 36.1 years. The Chinese creator had an av-erage of 28.8 years of life for making further achievement.Creators mostly excelled in political achievement (29.0%), fol-lowed by literary achievement (23.2%), scientific achievement(17.0%), and entertainment (11.6%). They not only consistedof innovators but also people creating impacts on society. ForHong Kong students particularly, creators in entertainmentwere disproportionately higher (17.1% vs. 6.2%). This findingaccords with the thesis about the influence of the entertain-ment industry in commercialist society (Giles 2000).

The most famous creator nominated by all Chinese studentswas Deng Xiaoping (1904-1977), the principal reformer ofChina from 1978 to 1990, who received 493 nominations. Hereceived the most nominations from Hong Kong (278) andMainland students (215) as well. The next most nominatedcreators were Mao Zedong (1893-1976, Chairman of China,449 nominations), Qin Shi Huang (259-210 B.C., First Emperorof China, 247 votes), Zhuge Liang (181-234 A.D., chancellor,

Means of popularity, creativity, social contribution, and esteem.

Hong Kong Mainland

All creators (N = 252)

Fame (%) 0.79 0.60

Creators commonly nominated in Hong Kongand Mainland (n = 80)

Fame (%) 2.31* 1.53

Creativity (0-10) 8.17 8.35

Social contribution (0-10) 7.76 7.61

Esteem (0-10) 6.35 6.62

Creators nominated in Hong Kong (n = 141)and Mainland (n = 195)

Fame (%) 1.47 0.81

Creativity (0-10) 8.19 8.10

Social contribution (0-10) 7.43 7.63

Esteem (0-10) 6.27 6.74

*: significantly higher at .05 level (by paired t-test)

TABLE 2.

186


245 nominations), Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925 A.D., NationalFather, 229 nominations), Confucius (551-479 B.C., memo-rized as the Supreme Sage, 194 nominations), and Zhou Enlai(1898-1976 A.D., Premier of China, 189 nominations). BecauseHong Kong students exhibited a more concentrated pool ofcreators than did Mainland students, the fame earned by eachof the creators was significantly higher (2.31% vs. 1.53%). Thisfinding is in line with past findings about the smaller pools ofcreators arising from Hong Kong students than by Mainlandstudents (Yue, 2003, 2004). Nevertheless, creativity, socialcontribution, and esteem were not significantly different be-tween ratings by Hong Kong students and Mainland students.

Creativity, as rated by Chinese students, was significantlyhigher in a creator in the scientific (ß = .207), entertainment(ß = .248), literary (ß = .202), or artistic (ß = .149) fields thana fictional one (see Table 3). Especially, a creator nominatedby Hong Kong students was more creative, according to thestudents’ perception, when the creator excelled in the scien-tific (ß = .415), entertainment (ß = .412), political (ß = .262),or artistic (ß = .251) field. In contrast, a creator nominated byMainland students was lower on creativity when the creatorexcelled in exploration (ß = –.242). The other fields did notmake a difference in the creativity of creators nominated byMainland students. These findings illustrate the advantage ofscientists and entertainers, with respect to the modernizationand commercialism theses. The advantage particularly occursin creators nominated by Hong Kong students. This clearlysupports the capitalism thesis. Nevertheless, the commercial-ism thesis does not hold when business creators were notespecially creative, according to Hong Kong students.

Social contribution, rated by students, was significantlyhigher in a creator who was a scientist (ß = .298) than a fic-tional one. The scientist’s advantage in social contributionperceived especially occurred among Hong Kong students. Thefindings lend support to the modernization thesis about thesalience of scientists’ social contribution. In contrast, a creatornominated by Mainland students was lower on social contribu-tion when the creator was an explorer (ß = –.242). Achieve-ment in entertainment and other fields did not significantlydemonstrate the creator’s social contribution, as perceived byChinese students.

Demographic factors, contrary to expectation, made nosignificant net difference in the creator’s social contribution.Apparently, earlier creators tended to contribute more to

Predicting Creativity

Predicting SocialContribution


187

TABLE 3. Standardized effects on creativity, social contribution, and esteem.

PredictorCreativity Social contribution Esteem

HK MC All HK MC All HK MC All

Female(vs. male) –.034 –.046 –.034 –.105 –.046 –.060 –.122 .110 .088

Alive –.189 .050 –.093 –.026 .050 –.106 –.118 –.100 –.160*

Year atachievement –.013 –.102 –.026 –.140 –.102 –.103 .080 .168* .158*

Age atachievement .080 –.084 –.039 .032 –.084 –.031 –.021 .022 –.012

Length of life –.044 .057 .017 –.014 .057 .064 –.110 –.050 –.059

Entertainment .412* –.032 .248* .122 –.032 .094 .107 .063 .121

Political .262* –.168 .055 .202 –.168 .123 –.047 –.056 –.048

Military .014 .066 .064 .069 .066 .084 .118 .158* .189*

Scientific .415* .006 .207* .345* .006 .298* –.011 –.131 –.016

Literary .191 .033 .202* .009 .033 –.060 .009 –.019 .056

Artistic .251* .031 .149* .073 .031 .030 .014 .008 .032

Philosophical .099 –.078 –.016 .147 –.078 .110 .055 –.131 –.061

Exploring .085 –.242* –.145* .100 –.242* –.024 –.061 .000 .008

Religious .088 –.089 –.016 –.147 –.089 –.040 –.197* –.219* –.169*

Business .094 –.010 .062 .111 –.010 .128 .042 .096 .098

Fictional(reference) — — — — — — — — —

R2 .124 .116 .100 .176 .188 .139 .109 .166 .136

Notes: *: p < .05; The fictional creator was the reference category.HK: Hong Kong; MC: Mainland China

society, according to students (ß = –.103) and the livingcreator had less contribution to society (ß = –.106) than thedeceased one. These findings were not statistically significant.

A creator was significantly more esteemed by Chinese stu-dents when the creator had military achievement (ß = .189)than when the creator achieved in any one of the many otherways. On the other hand, a religious creator was significantlyless esteemed (ß = –.169). These findings were similar basedon the esteem ratings of Hong Kong students and Chinesestudents. Besides, entertainers tended to have higher esteem

Predicting Esteem

188


among Hong Kong students than among Mainland students(ß = .107 vs. .063). The finding tends to support the thesis ofcommercialist influence, albeit not significantly.

A later creator was significantly more esteemed to Chinesestudents (ß = .158), but a living creator was significantly lessesteemed (ß = –.160) than a deceased one. These findingsconform to the expectation (Cohen, 2003; Schwartz, 1998;Simonton, 1998b)

A creator excelling in the scientific (ß = .360), political (ß =.207), military (ß = .205), philosophical (ß = .198), or busi-ness field (ß = .144) was significantly more famous than a fic-tional creator or generally one distinguished in another fieldamong Chinese students (see Table 4). These findings weresimilar between Hong Kong students and Mainland students.The finding about scientists’ higher reputation supports thethesis of modernization. Contrary to expectation, entertainerswere not significantly more famous (ß = .024) than fictionalcreators, particularly among Hong Kong students (ß = .015).

None of the demographic factors showed a significanteffect on the creator’s fame. The only notable finding was thegreater fame of creators who are still alive (ß = .108) than thatof deceased creators. This finding was inconsistent with thosefindings about the negative effects of being alive on esteem,creativity, and social contribution.

Creativity, social contribution, and esteem displayed weakand insignificant effects on the creator’s fame based on allChinese students. Nevertheless, creativity showed a significanteffect on the creator’s fame among Mainland students (ß =.127). Whereas creativity was not a significant predictor of fameamong Hong Kong students, social contribution was a signifi-cant predictor (ß = .133). Hence, only Hong Kong studentswere susceptible to meritorious bias in their recognition of cre-ators’ fame. In contrast, Mainland students derived the creators’fame from the creators’ creativity.

The square of creativity found in a creator showed a signifi-cant negative effect on the creator’s fame among Chinese stu-dents (ß = –.726). The negative effect implies that fame willbecome less when creativity is extremely high, although famewas higher when creativity was moderate than when it was low.Thus, the relationship between creativity and fame did not takethe shape of a straight line but instead showed an inverted-Ushaped curve (see Figure 1). This curve illustrated that an op-timal moderate level of creativity earned the greatest fame forthe creator. According to the regression estimates, maximum

Predicting Fame


189

TABLE 4. Standardized effects on fame (logged).

Hong Kong Mainland All(n = 141) (n = 195) (N = 252)

Predictor (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)

Female (vs. male) –.039 –.039 –.028 –.020 –.062 –.053

Alive .048 .071 .056 .074 .108 .129

Year at achievement –.092 –.091 .032 .043 –.087 –.075

Age at achievement –.009 –.005 –.083 –.076 –.063 –.056

Length of life –.017 –.020 –.015 –.022 –.036 –.045

Entertainment .015 .002 .030 –.007 .024 –.006

Political .188 .177 .205* .190* .207* .189*

Military .230* .208* .160* .147* .205* .189*

Scientific .234* .203* .391* .346* .360* .309*

Literary .161 .172 .102 .080 .177* .169

Artistic .003 .003 –.057 –.078 –.069 –.084

Philosophical .218* .207* .164* .159* .198* .186*

Exploring .042 .039 .017 .037 .040 .054

Religious .050 .067 –.011 –.007 .010 .017

Business .123 .102 .107 .091 .144* .123

Creativity –.036 .127# .072

Social contribution .133# .065 .120

Esteem .072 –.004 .008

(3)

Creativity square –.539# –.152 –.726*

Creativity × Socialcontribution –.191 .562# .134

R2 .114 .149 .148 .169 .153 .193

Notes: *: p < .05; #: p < .10; The fictional creator was the reference category.(1): Only creators’ attributes as predictors;(2): Creators’ creativity, social contribution, and esteem as additional

predictors;(3): Creators’ creativity square and other interactions as the additional

predictors separately.

190


fame occurred when creativity was 7.64. This optimal arousalmodel is applicable to explaining past findings about the emi-nence of artistic products (Simonton, 1984). Hence, extremelyhigh creativity discounts rather than enhances recognition. Thenegative effect of squared creativity, however, was not signifi-cant on the creator’s fame found in Mainland students.

The combination of creativity and social contribution led toa significant positive effect on the creator’s fame among Main-land students (ß = .562). Clearly, those most famous Chinesecreators had high social contribution and creativity (DengXiaoping, Mao Zedong, etc.). The pervasive social influenceapparently magnified the impact of creativity on their reputa-tion. However, this combination did not demonstrate a signifi-cant positive effect on fame among Hong Kong students(ß = –.191). Hence, the combination did not generally privi-lege creators in their reputation.

While some Chinese meritorious politicians were the most com-mon among Chinese students’ nominations of creators, scien-tists on average are more famous, creative, and meritoriousthan are creators excelling in other fields. One reason for thisdifferential advantage pertains to the effect of modernization,which make scientific achievement the most appealing, be-cause of its rational and objective basis.

Another instance of differential advantage arises fromentertainers nominated as creative in Hong Kong. Specifically,these entertainers appear to be more creative to Hong Kongstudents than to Mainland students. The differential advantageillustrates the influence of the entertainment industry promotedin the capitalist Hong Kong. Alternatively, modernization andcommercialism are responsible for explaining the sustainability

DISCUSSION

FIGURE 1. The effect of creativity on fame (logged).


191

of creative fame. However, entertainers are not more famousand esteemed than other recognized creators, even in HongKong. This is because different students have different prefer-ences for different entertainers. Consequently, any one enter-tainer would not be very popular among all students. The mostpopular entertainer is Bruce Lee (Kung Fu star, 1940-1973),who received nomination only from 28 students.

Results also suggest the availability heuristic and attentionto originality and similarity as other reasons for the sustain-ability of fame, creativity, social contribution, and esteem.Creators still alive are more famous, as indicated by being nomi-nated more often than are those deceased, probably becauseof the availability heuristic in that living creators are more vis-ible in various media (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). However,living creators tend to be rated lower in esteem, creativity, andsocial contribution. Because these creators’ achievement tendsto be less original than does the achievement of their prede-cessors, their creativity would be lower. On the other hand, latercreators are more esteemed partly because of their similaritywith the students (Rose, 2002). Accordingly, similarity is a rea-son for liking and friendship making. In this case, temporalproximity would enhance the students’ sense of similarity withthe creator. Conversely, earlier creators are less esteemed, prob-ably because of the decay of memory and recognition of thecreators (Schwartz, 1998).

There is a tendency of meritorious bias in that social contri-bution is associated with more fame. However, the meritoriousbias is not significant for Chinese students in general. It ap-plies only to Hong Kong students. The insignificance of themeritorious bias in the present sample is partly due to the con-trol for the creator’s field of excellence. Without controls forthe field of excellence and other background factors, socialcontribution significantly predicted the creator’s fame (ß =.223). Hence, the nomination of politicians and militarygeniuses already reflects the importance of social contribu-tion to creative fame.

Higher creativity does not necessarily earn more fame forthe creator. The formation of fame obeys an optimal arousalmodel in that a moderate level of creativity is associated withmore fame than a higher level of creativity. This model explainswhy mediocre performing artists are popular among theiraudience. The ordinary audience is unable to appreciate theperformance of creators who are too creative or exceptional.Thus, pop stars would not be the best in their fields of excel-lence. This model is consistent with the principle of cognitive-

192


developmental theory that the young person is more ready tolearn from people who are slightly more mature than from thosewho are highly mature (Kohlberg et al., 1983).

Social contribution does not generally enhance the effect ofcreativity on the creator’s fame among Chinese students. Theenhancement is significant only for the creator’s fame amongMainland students. Thus, the fame due to creativity in Main-land China appears to be merit-laden. At least, merit and cre-ativity are consonant and reinforcing each other’s impact onMainland students’ recognition of the creator. On the otherhand, Hong Kong students may distinguish between creativityand merit and regard the two qualities as complementary ratherthan reinforcing in their recognition of the creator. For HongKong students, merit does not impart added value to the fameof creators already high in creativity.

Although the nominated Chinese creators are disproportion-ately male, male creators are not necessarily more famous,creative, meritorious, and esteemed than are female creators.Among the creative elite, sex makes no further difference inthe recognized qualities. This finding offers support to themodernization thesis about sexual equality, as women’s socialstatus is comparable to that of men in Western (Jacques, 1998)and Chinese societies (Shu & Bian, 2002). In this connection,male and female students do not predominantly prefer cre-ators of their own sex. Thus, there is no disadvantage of fe-male creators in quality, despite their minority status in quantity.

Years of life did not make a creator significantly morefamous, creative, meritorious, and esteemed among Chinesestudents. This observation contradicts the nomothetic findingabout eminence in the past (Simonton, 1999). One reason isthe inclusion of living creators, who are likely to be young inthe present study. Hence, the contribution of cumulative ad-vantage through the lifespan applies only to historical figures.Contemporary creators can enjoy high popularity by their vis-ibility and publicity, which may be independent of their cumu-lative accomplishment.

In short, the present attempts to clarify the factors facilitat-ing individual creators’ perpetuation of fame among Chinesestudents, and is complementary to past research on the gen-esis of Chinese creators over time (Simonton, 1996). Whereaspast research has indicated the contribution of the zeitgeistand learning, emulation, or role modeling to the genesis, thisstudy demonstrates that the time of creativity could make adifference in the creators’ fame. In the first place, the time orzeitgeist is a common determinant of creative lifetime eminence


193

and long-term creative fame both individually and collectively.This observation justifies the association of an epoch withcertain kinds of great people or creators, a process known aseponymic labeling (Simonton 2001a). Hence, scientists arefamous creators in the modern world. On the other hand, cre-ativity does not lead to fame monotonically. Extremely cre-ative people may not sustain their fame. Thus, the genesis ofhighly creative people does not imply the preponderance oftheir high appeal at a time.

While scientists may be popularly recognized creators acrossthe modern world, entertainers are likely to enjoy more favor-able recognition for their creativity when the entertainingindustry is more developed and powerful vis-à-vis other insti-tutions. The high creativity of entertainers recognized by HongKong students illustrates this case. Conceivably, entertainmentindustries upheld in Western societies (Goulding, 2000) wouldpromote entertainers as important creative role models for theiryoung audience. However, because of the myriad of entertain-ers appealing to different young people, no single entertaineris likely to be overwhelmingly popular among all people.

Apart from revealing Chinese students’ recognition ofChinese creators, examination of other alternatives would pro-vide thorough understanding of the sustainability of creativefame. These alternatives include studying recognition of cre-ators of different nationalities by students of different agegroups and by other cohorts in Chinese societies. Such stud-ies would require painstaking efforts to code nominated fig-ures, especially in the unavailability of encyclopedic sources.They would however exploit frontier areas in the research lit-erature of creativity. Further studies ought to rely on a frame-work that incorporates factors about cross-national influence.Factors such as accessibility that affect the cross-national in-fluence would be important components of the model. Fur-ther research that involves historical and contemporary creatorsof different nationalities identified by people in different placeswould allow for a more complete understanding of the con-nections among fame, creativity, merit and esteem.

ADAMS-PRICE, C., & GREENE, A. L. (1990). Secondary attachments andadolescent self-concept. Sex Roles, 22, 187-198.

ANDEWEG, R. B., & VAN DEN BERG, S. B. (2003). Linking birth order topolitical leadership: The Impact of parents or sibling interaction? PoliticalPsychology, 24, 605-623.

BEST, S., & KELLNER, D. (2001). The postmodern adventure: Science,Technology, and cultural studies at the third millennium. New York:Guilford.

Further Research

REFERENCES

194


BRAND, P. (1999). The Environment and postmodern spatial consciousness:A sociology of urban environmental agendas. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning & Management, 42, 631-648.

CASSANDRO, V. J. (1998). Explaining premature mortality across fields ofcreative endeavor. Journal of Personality, 66, 805-833.

CHEN, Y. (1993). Encyclopedia of Chinese recent and modern people’snames. Hanzhou, China: Zhejiang Classics.

CHEUNG, C. K., & YUE, X. D. (2000). Idol worshipping for vain glory, illusoryromance or intellectual learning: A study in Nanjing and Hong Kong.International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 8, 299-317.

CHEUNG, C. K., & YUE, X. D. (2003). Identity achievement and idol worshipamong teenagers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Adolescenceand Youth, 11, 1-26.

CHEUNG, C. K., & YUE, X. D. (2004). Adolescent modeling after luminaryand star idols and development of self-efficacy. International Journalof Adolescence and Youth, 11, 251-267.

COHEN, J. E. (2003). The polls: Presidential greatness as seen in the masspublic: An extension and application of the Simonton model. PresidentialStudies Quarterly, 33, 913-.

COLLINS, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory ofintellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CONWAY, M. M. (1990). Fostering group-based political participation. In O.Ichilov (Ed.), Political socialization, citizenship, education, anddemocracy (pp.297-312). New York: Teachers College.

CREW, R. E., JR. (1998). Gubernatorial leadership: Testing a preliminarymodel. Social Science Journal, 35, 15-27.

CROPLEY, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativitytests worth using. Roeper Review, 23(2), 72-79.

EYSENCK, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge.

GILES, D. (2000). Illusions of immortality: A psychology of fame andcelebrity. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.

GOULDING, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodernpastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporaryheritage attraction. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 835-853.

HABERMAS, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action, Vol.1: Reasonand the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

HEINZEN, T. E. (1995). Ethical evaluation bias. Creative Research Journal,8, 417-422.

INGLEHART, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural,economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

INGLEHART, R., & BAKER, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change,and the persistence of traditional values. American SociologicalReview, 65, 1-51.

JACQUES, J. M. (1998). Changing marital and family patterns: A test of thepost-modern perspective. Sociological Perspectives. 41, 381-413.

JING, H., ZHENG, C., & XIAO, H. (1995). People’s cultural momentumand modernization: Report of the study of the cultural momentumof urban residents in China. Beijing, China: People’s.

KOHLBERG, L., LEVINE, C., & HEWER, A. (1983). Moral stages: A currentformulation and a response to critics. Basel Switzerland: S. Karger.


195

LI, P. (2001). Options for China in the new stage reform: Analysis of socialsituation. In L. Jiang, X. Lu & T. Dan (Eds.), 2000: Analysis and forecastof China’s social situation (Pp.1-26). Beijing, China: China SocialScience.

LIAO, G., LUO, Z., & FAN, Y. (1990). Encyclopedia of Chinese People’snames: Historical Volume. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Encyclopedia.

LIM, W., & PLUCKER, J.A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of socialresponsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journalof Creative Behavior, 35, 115-130.

LLOYD BOSTOC, S. M. A. (1979). Convergent-divergent thinking and arts-science orientation. British Journal of Psychology, 70 , 155-163.

MA, Y. (1993). Encyclopedia of Chinese cultural celebrities. Beijing, China:Chinese Youth.

MCCUTCHEON, L. E., ASHE, D. D., HOURAN, J., & MALTBY, J. (2003). Acognitive profile of individuals who tend to worship celebrities. Journalof Psychology, 137, 309-322.

MONETA, G. B. (1993). A model of scientists’ creative potential: Thematching cognitive structure and domain structure. PhilosophicalPsychology, 6, 23-37.

MONETA, G. B., & SIU, C. M. Y. (2002). Trait intrinsic and extrinsicmotivations, academic performance, and creativity in Hong Kong collegestudents. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 665-683.

MORRISON, W. (1995). Theoretical criminology: From modernity topostmodernity. London, UK: Cavendish.

MOUCHIROUD, C., & LUBART, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: Anempirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergentthinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 382-401.

MOUZELIS, N. (1999). Modernity: A Non-European conceptualization.British Journal of Sociology, 50, 141-159.

MUMFORD, M. D., MARKS, M. A., CONNELLY, M. S., ZUCCARO, S. J., &REITER-PALMON, R. (2000). Development of leadership skills:Experience and timing. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 87-114.

REED, G. G. (1995). Moral/political education in the People’s Republic ofChina: Learning through role models. Journal of Moral Education, 24,99-111.

ROJEK, C. (1995). Decentring leisure: Rethinking leisure theory. London:Sage.

ROSE, R. J. (2002). How do adolescents select their friends? A behavior-genetic perspective. In L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths tosuccessful development: Personality in the life course (Pp.106-125).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

RUDOWICZ, E., & HUI, A. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kongperspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 139-157.

RUDOWICZ, E., & YUE, X. D. (2000). Concepts of creativity: Similaritiesand differences among Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Chinese.Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 175-192.

SAWYER, R. K. (1999). The emergence of creativity. PhilosophicalPsychology, 12, 447-468.

SCHIBECI, R., & LEE, L. (2003). Portrayals of science and scientists, andscience for citizenship. Research in Science & Technological Educa-tion, 21, 177-192.

SCHROEDER, J. E., & DUGAL, S.S. (1995). Psychological correlates of thematerialism construct. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,10, 243-253.

196


SCHULTZE, Q. J., ANKER, R.M., BRATT, J. D., ROMANOWKSKI, W. D.,WORST, J. W., & ZUIDERVAART, L. (1991). Dancing in the dark: Youth,popular culture, and the electronic media. Grand Rapids, MI: WilliamsB. Eerdmans.

SCHWARTZ, B. (1998). Postmodernity and historical reputation: AbrahamLincoln in late twentieth-cenutry America memory. Social Forces, 77,63-103.

SMITH, C. D., & WRIGHT, L. (2000). Perceptions of genius: Einstein, lessermortals and shooting stars. Journal of Creative Behavior 34, 165-174.

SHU, X., & BIAN, Y. (2002). Intercity variation in gender inequalities in China:Analysis of a 1995 national survey. Research in Social Stratification &Mobility, 19, 269-309.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historio-metric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1996). Galtonian genius, Kroeberian configurations, andemulation: A generational time-series analysis of Chinese civilization.In Simonton, D.K. (Ed.), in Genius and creativity: Selected papers(pp.55-78). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1998a). Achieved Eminence in minority and majoritycultures: Convergence versus divergence in the assessments of 294African Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74,804-817.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1998b). Fickle fashion versus immortal fame: Trans-historical assessments of creative products in the opera house. Journalof Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 198-210.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1998). Political leadership across the life span:Chronological versus career age in the British monarchy. LeadershipQuarterly, 9, 309-320.

SIMONTON, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives oncreativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

SOGUNRO, O. A. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development.Evaluation Review, 21, 713-727.

TERENZINI, P. T. SPRINGER, L., PASCARELLA, E. T., & NORA, A. (1993).Influences Affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills.Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for InstitutionalResearch, New Orleans, LA.

TVERSKY, A., & KAHNEMAN, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judgingfrequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 207-232.

VENKATESH, A. (1999). Postmodernism perspectives for macromarketing:An Inquiry into the global information and sign economy. Journal ofMacromarketing, 19, 153-169.

YUE, X. D. (2003). Meritorious evaluation bias: How Chinese undergraduatesperceive Chinese and foreign creators, Journal of Creative Behavior,Vol.37, 88-104.

YUE, X. D. (2004). Whoever is influential is creative: How Chinese under-graduates choose creative people in Chinese societies, PsychologicalReports, Vol. 94, 1235-1249.

Correspondence: Chau-kiu Cheung, Department of Applied Social Studies,City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China (E-mail:[email protected])

Documents

Which Chinese Creators are Famous and why: Views from Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese Students