2.1. Creative cognition

The creative cognition approach posits creativity as an outcome of standard cognitive processes (Ward & Kolomyts, Reference Ward, Kolomyts, Kaufman and Sternberg2019). It is built on the premise that creative outputs are novel (i.e., original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or meeting task constraints; see Mayer, Reference Mayer, Runco and Pritzker1999, for an overview) and that these outputs emerge from applying ordinary cognitive functions to existing knowledge (Ward, Reference Ward2007). Creative performance is thus seen as a function of specific cognitive processes and the depth and adaptability of the knowledge structures they engage with (Ward et al., Reference Ward, Smith and Vaid1997), suggesting that enhancing cognitive functioning could boost creativity.

This approach defines creative capacity as the ability to engage in repeated cycles of divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, Reference Guilford1967). The key distinction between these thinking styles lies in their cognitive processes: convergent thinking is a focused, attention-intensive process aimed at identifying a single correct solution to a problem (Runco et al., Reference Runco, Dow and Smith2006), while divergent thinking operates in the subliminal, characterized by defocused attention and associative thought, exploring multiple, innovative solutions to open-ended problems (Mumford et al., Reference Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon and Doares1991). Guilford identified four primary attributes of divergent thinking: fluency (the rapid generation of multiple ideas), flexibility (the ability to explore different problem-solving strategies), elaboration (the detailed development and execution of an idea), and originality (the generation of unique ideas). The evaluation phase employs convergent thinking to sift through the possibilities produced during divergent thinking, culminating in selecting the most effective solution. This dynamic interplay between divergent and convergent thinking underpins the creative process, leading to novel and useful outcomes.

The association of creativity with divergent thinking has led to the development of various divergent thinking tests such as the Alternative Uses Test (Guilford et al., Reference Guilford, Christensen, Merrifield and Wilson1978), Consequences Test (Christensen et al., Reference Christensen, Merrifield and Guilford1953), Instances Test (Wallach & Kogan, Reference Wallach and Kogan1965), Plot Titles (Berger & Guilford, Reference Berger and Guilford1969), Remote Associates Test (Mednick & Mednick, Reference Mednick and Mednick1967), Uses of Objects Test (Getzels & Jackson, Reference Getzels and Jackson1962), and Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, Reference Torrance1966). The latter is a widely used creativity test developed to evaluate children’s divergent thinking abilities. It includes verbal and figural tasks assessing fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA; Goff & Torrance, Reference Goff and Torrance2002) is a shorter version comprising three verbal and figural tasks, with three minutes each. Various divergent thinking tests have been used in studies related to bilingual creativity.

2.2. Empirical evidence

Ricciardelli (Reference Ricciardelli1992b) presented an overview of the studies between 1965 and 1992. Twenty-three out of 24 were conducted with children and only one with college students. All studies made comparisons between bilingual and monolingual groups. Most found that bilingual children performed better on verbal and nonverbal divergent thinking tests. Bilingual children outperformed their monolingual counterparts on fluency (e.g., Carringer, Reference Carringer1974; Jacobs & Pierce, Reference Jacobs and Pierce1966; Ricciardelli, Reference Ricciardelli1992a), flexibility (e.g., Carringer, Reference Carringer1974), elaboration (e.g., Srivastava & Khatoon, Reference Srivastava, Khatoon and Annamalai1980; Torrance et al., Reference Torrance, Gowan, Wu and Aliotti1970), and originality (e.g., Cummins & Gulutsan, Reference Cummins, Gulutsan and Carey1974; Okoh, Reference Okoh1980). Only a few studies reported no group difference in TTCT performance (e.g., Gowan & Torrance, Reference Gowan and Torrance1965; Whitney, Reference Whitney1974), and one study (Torrance et al., Reference Torrance, Gowan, Wu and Aliotti1970) comparing Chinese- and Malayan-English bilingual and Chinese and Malayan monolingual children on TTCT found monolingual superiority on figural fluency and flexibility. In the only study with college students (Lemmon & Goggin, Reference Lemmon and Goggin1989), the performance of Spanish-English bilingual and English monolingual undergraduates was compared on cognitive ability tasks that required concept formation, mental reorganization, abstract and divergent thinking, and mental flexibility. The results showed that the monolingual participants tended to score higher than their bilingual counterparts on most cognitive skill measures. However, further analysis of high and low-proficiency bilingual subgroups (distinguished based on their picture naming score in Spanish) indicated that the bilinguals’ low performance should be attributed to participants with limited skills in Spanish.

This last finding offers an insight into the possible negative impact of bilingualism on creativity through Cummins’s (Reference Cummins1976) threshold hypothesis, which posits that cognitive benefits of bilingualism emerge only when individuals achieve a certain proficiency level in both languages. Ricciardelli (Reference Ricciardelli1992a) supported this with evidence that bilinguals proficient in both languages outperformed monolinguals in divergent thinking, while those with lower proficiencies did not. Therefore, the reported negative effects of bilingualism on creativity might stem from insufficient language proficiency. However, verifying this link is challenging, as many earlier studies lacked detailed language assessment information.

2.3. Methodological drawbacks

In fact, these earlier studies had many methodological flaws that led to premature interpretations of results and caused the academic community to approach bilingual creativity with a grain of salt. Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin, Altarriba and Heredia2018) presented a detailed discussion of these methodological issues; here, we briefly discuss the main points.

Most studies used the tests of divergent thinking. Although divergent thinking is considered an essential component of creative thinking, equating these two types seems conceptually flawed (Acar & Runco, Reference Acar, Runco, Kaufman and Sternberg2019). A whole plethora of creativity assessment techniques addressing various aspects of creativity was excluded from bilingual creativity research.

A similar issue was observed with an assessment of bilingualism. Bilingual individuals vary in their proficiency across the languages they speak, the age at which they acquire their languages, cultural and heritage backgrounds, and the contexts in which they acquire and use their languages. Nonetheless, the early studies ignored these variations. Many of them did not even assess participants’ language proficiency.

The disregard of these variations led to one of the major methodological glitches contaminating not only bilingual creativity research but also bilingualism research at large. It arises from a procedure that assigns participants to bilingual and monolingual groups. As Hakuta and Diaz (Reference Hakuta, Diaz and Nelson1985) pointed out, “In the real world, there is no such thing as random assignment to a bilingual and monolingual group” (p. 329), and it is almost impossible to control all variables that may have an impact on this distinction. Early studies did not consider participants’ comparative language proficiency and circumstances of language acquisition and use when selecting them for a group. The large dispersion of participants’ linguistic and geographic backgrounds made drawing clear conclusions about the bilingual population challenging.

3.1. Methodological improvements

3.1.1. Adult participants

First, although many studies continued testing children, they were already outnumbered by research conducted with college students and adults (see Table 1). It is essential to distinguish the research conducted with children and adults because language development, cognitive processes, and educational practices differ across different life stages.

Table 1

Summary of the research conducted between 1992 and 2024

Note. Within-group design compared different types of bilinguals, whereas between-group design compared bilinguals and monolinguals. AoA = age of acquisition. WAT = Word Association Test (Lambert, Reference Lambert1956). PNT = Picture Naming Test (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2005). TTCT = Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, Reference Torrance1966). AUT = Alternative Uses Test (Guilford et al., Reference Guilford, Christensen, Merrifield and Wilson1978). IAC = Invented Alien Creatures Task (Ward, Reference Ward1994). ATTA = Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (Goff & Torrance, Reference Goff and Torrance2002). RAT = Remote Associates Test (Mednick & Mednick, Reference Mednick and Mednick1967). EPoC = Evaluation of Potential Creativity (Lubart et al., Reference Lubart, Besançon and Barbot2011). RIBS = Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (Runco et al., Reference Runco, Plucker and Lim2001). The Bilingualism Preference column indicates whether the results favor bilingualism, are neutral, or mixed.

Children acquire languages during a critical period (Lenneberg, Reference Lenneberg1953) marked by rapid growth and sensitivity to environmental input. In contrast, adults learn additional languages beyond this period, facing challenges due to less neuroplasticity and established linguistic patterns. Consequently, research on bilingualism in children often focuses on the cognitive advantages of early bilingual exposure and its neuroplastic impacts on development. Studies on adults, however, examine the capacity for cognitive improvement through later language learning and its effects on cognitive aging. Additionally, the social and cultural contexts of language learning vary between children, influenced by family, peers, and education, and adults, whose language acquisition is shaped by factors like immigration, acculturation, and professional environments.

3.2. Empirical evidence

The reviewed studies presented evidence in favor of bilingualism. Seventy percent of those comparing bilingual and monolingual groups demonstrated that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on creativity measures, 25 percent obtained no significant difference, and only one study reported mixed results (see Table 1). Specifically, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2010a) compared the performance of Russian-English bilingual and English monolingual college students residing in the USA on the verbal and nonverbal indicators of the ATTA. The results demonstrated a bilingual advantage in nonverbal creativity and a monolingual advantage in verbal creativity. These findings were explained by the facilitatory effect of bilingualism in nonverbal and inhibitory in the verbal domain, as well as for creativity.

The picture was even more dramatic with the data collected from different types of bilinguals. Ninety percent of these studies demonstrated the positive effect of bilingualism, with only one study revealing no effect and one producing mixed results (see Table 1). Specifically, Hommel and his colleagues (Reference Hommel, Colzato, Fischer and Christoffels2011) observed that highly proficient Dutch-English college students exhibited lower divergent thinking fluency but higher convergent thinking compared to less proficient German-English peers, although methodological concerns cast doubt on these findings. Notably, the study’s use of the RAT as a measure of convergent thinking – contrary to its common classification as a divergent thinking test – complicates interpretations of these results (Lee & Therriault, Reference Lee and Therriault2013; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Huang, Chen and Chen2020). In fact, this is the only study that demonstrated a low-proficient bilingual advantage in divergent thinking. However, this advantage was found for fluency but not other divergent thinking traits.

The empirical evidence obtained with different types of bilinguals allowed for a deeper exploration of the relationship between bilingualism and creativity. It helped to identify factors that facilitate cognitive processes underlying bilingual creativity.

3.3. Bilingual developmental factors

At least three developmental factors and four cognitive mechanisms could explain the positive relationship between bilingualism and creativity.

3.4. Cognitive mechanisms of bilingual creativity

Further, four mechanisms were identified to account for the positive correlation between bilingualism and creativity: language-mediated concept activation (LMCA), selective attention, code-switching, and metaphor.

4.1. Multilingual creative cognition approach

The reviewed empirical evidence led to formulating the theoretical framework of multilingual creative cognition (MCC; Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin and Jones2015). The MCC paradigm is grounded in the following premises. Research in bilingual cognitive development conducted over the last 50 years provided evidence supporting the notion that speaking more than one language extends an individual’s cognitive capacities (see overview in Bialystok, Reference Bialystok and Francis2021). There is a strong argument in the literature that bilingual development may result in establishing specific architectures of the mind that are likely to promote later cognitive advantages (Bialystok & Craik, Reference Bialystok and Craik2022). On the other hand, according to the creative cognition approach (Ward & Kolomyts, Reference Ward, Kolomyts, Kaufman and Sternberg2019) presented above, creativity is considered a product of normative cognitive functioning. Hence, if acquiring and using multiple languages facilitates general cognitive functioning and results in more elaborate cognitive structures and functioning, it may also facilitate creative functioning (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012).

The reasoning presented here is based on research that primarily involved bilingual individuals. However, extending this logic to people who speak more than two languages is plausible. In fact, some participants included in the bilingual group of these studies could speak more than two languages. For example, in Kharkhurin’s (Reference Kharkhurin2008) study, many Russian-English bilingual participants were exposed to their ethnic languages in addition to Russian, and some even reported taking foreign language classes. Similarly, Farsi-English bilingual participants in the UAE sample (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2009) knew other languages that they had learned either in a classroom setting (such as French and Spanish) or a natural multilingual environment (such as Arabic and Urdu). Therefore, instead of referring to bilinguals, we use the term MCC to refer to multilingual individuals.

The MCC framework embraces the multilingual developmental factors and cognitive functions that, on one side, benefit from the use of multiple languages and, on the other, facilitate creative thinking. These factors and functions were presented in the previous section.

4.2. A situated cognition approach

The major disadvantage of the MCC is that it focuses on the cognitive processes underlying creative thinking and disregards environmental factors. The situated cognition approach offers a perspective that can potentially fill this gap (van Dijk et al., Reference van Dijk, Kroesbergen, Blom and Leseman2018). It posits that cognitive processes are deeply embedded within and shaped by the sociocultural and physical contexts in which they occur (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Collins and Duguid1989). From this perspective, cognition is not solely an individual and internal phenomenon but is intricately intertwined with the social, cultural, and environmental factors that surround it. In this regard, the linguistic and cultural diversity experienced by multilingual individuals creates unique cognitive environments that influence how they perceive, interpret, and generate creative ideas. The previously cited research provided empirical evidence of the importance of sociocultural factors in explaining the relationship between bilingualism and creativity.

In situated cognition, an individual interacts with the environment and perceives opportunities for action that emerge from it. These affordances allow individuals to interact with their surroundings and achieve their goals adaptively (Chemero, Reference Chemero2003). Affordances are not inherent properties of objects or environments but are relational and context-dependent, shaped by the individual’s goals, abilities, and experiences (Gibson, Reference Gibson1979).

Affordances provide the perceived opportunities for action that inspire and guide creative endeavors within the environment. Creativity often involves perceiving and leveraging affordances in novel and innovative ways, allowing individuals to explore alternative perspectives, generate original ideas, and solve complex problems (Chemero, Reference Chemero2003). Glăveanu (Reference Glăveanu2013) included affordances in his 5As model, suggesting that understanding how individuals perceive and interact with their environment can provide valuable insights into the creative process.

Multilingual experience can enrich an individual’s perception of affordances by providing diverse linguistic and cultural frameworks that shape their interactions with the environment. In Okoh’s (Reference Okoh1980) words, bilinguals have “two windows or corridors through which to view the world” (p. 164). As individuals navigate multiple languages and cultures, they develop a heightened sensitivity to the environmental cues and subtle nuances available in different linguistic and cultural contexts. This heightened sensitivity can extend to the perception of affordances, boosting their creative capacities. The idea that multilingual individuals’ heightened sensitivity can lead to developing their creative abilities was also entertained by works in plurilingualism. For example, Furlong (Reference Furlong2009) said, “Given high-level plurilinguals’ increased perceptual awareness, they are likely to gain new insights, create new analogies and experience creative moments in any domain where perception is at work” (p. 365).

The introduction of the concepts of affordances and plurilingualism in the equation of multilingual and creative practices questions the ecological validity of the MCC approach.

6.1. Participants selection

Moving away from a monolingual perspective appeals to careful participant selection. Finding monolingual participants is challenging, especially in linguistically diverse areas, because they are inevitably exposed to other languages (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin, Altarriba and Heredia2018). Moreover, per earlier discussion, it does not seem prudent to compare multilinguals and monolinguals because they may have different organizations of mental representations (Cook & Wei, Reference Cook and Wei2016). These considerations necessitate conducting studies with different types of multilingual individuals. Additionally, the diversity in participants’ linguistic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds adds layers to the research that must be carefully managed to ensure validity.

First, assessing all the languages the participants speak is crucial for the integrity of the research on multilingualism. Studies demonstrate that individuals often categorized as bilinguals actually have exposure to multiple languages, whether through heritage, education, or environmental immersion (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2008, Reference Kharkhurin2009). This linguistic diversity within supposedly bilingual groups can lead to methodological inconsistencies and affect the reliability of research findings.

Second, it is essential to differentiate between individuals who learned L2 in a classroom setting and those who acquired it through immersive, real-life experiences. This distinction is important because real-world language use, intertwined with cultural experiences, significantly influences linguistic proficiency and cognitive frameworks (e.g., de Groot, Reference de Groot2000; Paradis, Reference Paradis2000). Immersive learning leads to deeper linguistic involvement and acculturation, affecting conceptual systems uniquely (Pavlenko, Reference Pavlenko, Kroll and de Groot2005).

Third, variations in linguistic and cultural backgrounds can influence the development of creative potential differently, as demonstrated in studies comparing bilinguals with varying language pairs (e.g., Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2010b). The working of the LMCA suggests that the variations in lexical and conceptual characteristics of bilinguals’ languages may also influence the organization of bilingual memory. The larger the typological gap between two languages, the more significant the variation in how mental representations of a word or phrase and its translated counterpart are structured (Paradis, Reference Paradis2004). Hence, we need to control the typological distance between the languages spoken by participants.

Fourth, conducting multilingualism research with adults is essential because it allows for examining long-term cognitive effects and the stability of bilingual advantages into adulthood, providing insights into how lifelong multilingualism shapes cognitive resilience (Bialystok et al., Reference Bialystok, Craik and Luk2012) and potentially creative thinking. Furthermore, adult participants offer a broader perspective on applying multiple languages in diverse contexts, enhancing our understanding of the complex relationship between language use, cognitive flexibility, and creativity in real-world settings (Costa & Sebastián-Gallés, Reference Costa and Sebastián-Gallés2014).

6.2. Assessment of multilingual experience

We have repeatedly stated that multilingual individuals have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. They also vary in the circumstances of language acquisition and use. Moreover, each individual may learn and use each language differently.

To fully understand an individual’s multilingual experience, we must take a holistic approach that examines the complex interplay between language, culture, and identity-related factors. This includes assessing language proficiency across all known languages, understanding the diverse contexts in which each language is utilized, and measuring the depth of cultural exposure and its influence on the individual’s identity and societal attitudes. The history of how each language was acquired offers insights into linguistic development, while socioeconomic factors reveal the practical benefits of multilingualism. Additionally, examining cognitive and psychological adaptation, social networks, educational background, economic opportunities, efforts in language maintenance, digital literacy, and the impact of interlingual relationships, personal motivations for language learning, societal attitudes, and globalization on language practices provides a comprehensive view.

Multilingual experience assessments are typically comprehensive and involve a multidimensional approach, such as The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (Marian et al., Reference Marian, Blumenfeld and Kaushanskaya2007). This questionnaire collects detailed information on an individual’s language history, proficiency, and experience across multiple languages. It provides insights into the languages they know, the context in which they learned these languages, their proficiency levels, and how often they use them daily. The questionnaire is available in 38 different languages. Another tool is the Multilingual and Multicultural Experience Questionnaire (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012). It consists of 114 questions that assess participants’ experience with multiple languages, their language preferences and use in various settings, degree of bilingual balance, their exposure and preferences to various cultures, multicultural competence, psychological acculturation, and languages and cultures of their parents. Other tools are also available, which researchers and practitioners can customize to fit specific study or assessment needs (e.g., Li et al., Reference Li, Zhang, Yu and Zhao2019).

However, the complexity of this multifaceted experience poses a significant challenge in ensuring that the richness of multilingual contexts is adequately captured and reflected in empirical findings. Research in bilingualism and multilingualism grapples with the issue of translating the holistic and intricate nature of multilingual experience into a manageable set of quantitative variables amenable to statistical analysis.

Several studies of multilinguals’ personality traits used a total number of spoken languages to assess participants’ experience with multiple languages (e.g., Dewaele & Stavans, Reference Dewaele and Stavans2012; Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, Reference Dewaele and van Oudenhoven2009). Dewaele and Wei (Reference Dewaele and Wei2013) complemented this score with the mean proficiency score calculated for all languages spoken by participants. Kharkhurin and his colleagues (Reference Kharkhurin, Koncha and Charkhabi2023a) added habitual code-switching and built a composite score using the regression equation.

Other scholars made attempts to treat language experience and use as a multifaceted construct that is shaped by factors such as the age of acquisition, history of language acquisition, and context and frequency of language use (e.g., Gullifer et al., Reference Gullifer, Kousaie, Gilbert, Grant, Giroud, Coulter and Titone2021; Gullifer & Titone, Reference Gullifer and Titone2021; Titone & Tiv, Reference Titone and Tiv2022). For example, Gullifer and Titone (Reference Gullifer and Titone2020) introduced the notion of language entropy to capture “individual differences in the social diversity of language use, including the interactional context of language usage” (p. 284). This metric is derived as a sum of the proportion of a language used in a particular context multiplied by the logarithmic function of this proportion for all languages spoken by a language user.

6.3. Assessment of multicultural experience

Further, we have already discussed that multilingual individuals not only master several languages but also embrace diverse multicultural values, significantly influencing their creative potential and its development. Research highlights the profound impact of social and cultural aspects on creativity (e.g., Kharkhurin & Yagolkovskiy, Reference Kharkhurin and Yagolkovskiy2021; McCarthy, Reference McCarthy2019), suggesting that any comprehensive creativity model must include cultural perspectives (Glăveanu, Reference Glăveanu2010).

Research on bilingual creativity often relied on simplistic assessments, such as self-report questionnaires focusing narrowly on participants’ exposure to different cultures. These studies emphasized the significance of arrival age and residence duration in a new country, noting their distinct influences on cognitive function and cultural identity (e.g., Tsai et al., Reference Tsai, Ying and Lee2000). For example, Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2008) explored these factors and revealed that the length of residence in the new cultural environment related to bilinguals’ performance on fluency, flexibility, and elaboration in divergent thinking. Similarly, Maddux and Galinsky (Reference Maddux and Galinsky2009) demonstrated a significant correlation between time spent abroad and an ability to overcome functional fixedness in creative problem-solving. In a recent study, Fürst and Grin (Reference Fürst and Grin2023) constructed a multicultural experience variable based on the number of countries visited, the number of important countries, and the rating of importance of these countries and found that it correlated with creative personality and creative activity.

While it may be tempting to attribute cross-cultural effects on creative performance to cross-cultural exposure, it is crucial to recognize that such exposure does not fully capture the psychological impact of acculturation (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2012). The psychological effects of integrating into a new culture are more complex than simple exposure suggests. This consideration highlights the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of how acculturation affects creativity (Tropp et al., Reference Tropp, Erkut, Coll, Alarcon and Garcia1999).

Therefore, we must employ more nuanced methodologies to capture the complexity of multicultural experiences. Several psychometric tools can be used to measure an individual’s ability to function effectively in cross-cultural settings and their level of exposure and integration with multicultural interactions. These tools include but are not limited to the Multicultural Experience Questionnaire (Narvaez et al., Reference Narvaez, Endicott and Hill2010), which evaluates both experience and desire for multicultural interactions, and the Multicultural Experience Assessment scale (Aytug et al., Reference Aytug, Kern and Dilchert2018), distinguishing between multicultural exposures and multicultural interactions, which are measured based on frequency, duration, and breadth.

6.4. Assessment of intercultural competence

Due to extensive exposure to diverse cultural norms, values, and practices, an individual may develop intercultural competence. This process involves learning to navigate cultural differences, developing empathy towards other cultural perspectives, and acquiring the ability to adapt one’s behavior appropriately in diverse social contexts, thereby transforming multicultural exposure into practical intercultural skills.

The ‘may’ is essential because mere exposure to other cultures is insufficient. One needs to learn from this experience and acquire new skills actively. Interacting with various cultures gives individuals insights and understanding critical for effective intercultural communication and behavior. Thus, multicultural experience contributes to the foundation of knowledge and understanding of different cultures, while intercultural competence involves actively applying this understanding in real-world interactions.

The academic discourse on intercultural competence is marked by diverse models often presenting contrasting viewpoints, reflecting their varied disciplinary origins and domain-specific applications (e.g., Byram, Reference Byram1997; Deardorff, Reference Deardorff2009; Griffith et al., Reference Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios and Liu2016, for an overview). Models based on personality traditions emphasize traits conducive to intercultural interaction (e.g., van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, Reference van der Zee and van Oudenhoven2000), while those informed by intelligence research focus on cognitive capabilities for navigating cultural differences (e.g., Earley & Ang, Reference Earley and Ang2003). Other frameworks prioritize attitudes and worldviews (e.g., Bennett, Reference Bennett and Paige1993) or the competencies required for professional success in global contexts (e.g., Sternberg, Reference Sternberg2005). Integrative approaches recognize the multifaceted nature of intercultural competence and embrace multidisciplinary perspectives (e.g., Bird et al., Reference Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens and Oddou2010; Javidan & Teagarden, Reference Javidan and Teagarden2011; Leung et al., Reference Leung, Ang and Tan2014). For example, Leung and his team view it as synthesizing intercultural traits, attitudes, worldviews, and capabilities.

The proliferation of assessment tools measuring intercultural competence stems from the demands of the globalized world for individuals from diverse professions and educational settings to interact effectively across cultural boundaries. These tools provide nuanced insights into individuals’ abilities to navigate and bridge cultural differences, fostering better communication, collaboration, and understanding in multicultural environments. Each tool, with its unique focus, aims to capture various dimensions of intercultural competence, reflecting the complex, multifaceted nature of effectively engaging with cultural diversity.

The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, Reference van der Zee and van Oudenhoven2000) evaluates cultural empathy, open-mindedness, social initiative, emotional stability, and flexibility. The Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Koh2015) measures an individual’s capability to operate effectively in cross-cultural settings. The Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer et al., Reference Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman2003) assesses the ability to shift cultural perspective and adapt behavior appropriately to cultural differences and commonalities. The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Davis & Finney, Reference Davis and Finney2006) assesses an individual’s potential for cross-cultural effectiveness. The Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen & Starosta, Reference Chen and Starosta2000) measures an individual’s ability to modify behavior in a culturally appropriate manner. The Integrative Intercultural Competence Survey (Khukhlaev et al., Reference Khukhlaev, Gritsenko, Pavlova, Tkachenko, Usubian and Shorokhova2021) measures an individual’s ability to function effectively in intercultural communication. It distinguishes four subscales: intercultural stability (individual personality characteristics that allow a person to be resistant to stressful situations of intercultural communication), intercultural interest (desire to communicate with people from other cultures, interest in culture and cultural differences), lack of ethnocentrism (respect and acceptance of cultural diversity) and management of intercultural interaction (wide range of communication skills, essential for intercultural communication). These are just a few instruments that provide nuanced insights into how individuals navigate and integrate into diverse cultural contexts and contribute uniquely to understanding the multifaceted nature of intercultural competence and adaptability.

Finally, the previous discussion highlighted the importance of acknowledging the connection between language proficiency and cultural understanding. Effective communication and collaboration across cultures involves more than just linguistic ability. It requires cultural empathy, awareness, and adaptability. This holistic approach should be reflected in the assessment instrument, addressing the ramifications of both multilingual and multicultural experiences. Note that even the most elaborate questionnaires mentioned above mainly assess cross-linguistic and cross-cultural exposure and do not capture the competencies resulting from multilingual and multicultural experiences.

The solution to this issue is the Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence scale (PPC; Galante, Reference Galante2022), which was informed by sociolinguistics theories in educational linguistics, including translanguaging and plurilingualism (see extensive discussion of plurilingualism below). It consists of 22 items scored on a 4-point Likert scale, which assesses multilingualism and multiculturalism as a unified competence. However, a nuanced view of the PPC encompasses four distinct dimensions: plurilingual conversation, plurilingual cognition, intercultural tolerance, and intercultural skills (Belova & Kharkhurin, Reference Belova and Kharkhurin2024). These dimensions can be grouped as plurilingual competence and intercultural competence, respectively.

6.5. Assessment of creativity

The creative cognition approach was a reliable methodology to investigate the cognitive processes related to bilinguals’ creative thinking. However, it became evident that the concept of creativity is much more intricate and multifaceted (Runco, Reference Runco2014). This complexity is reflected in various models such as 5As (Attention, Attitude, Association, Amplification, Analogies; Glăveanu, Reference Glăveanu2013), 7Ps (Potential, Person, Process, Perception, Product, Press, Persuasion; Kharkhurin & Charkhabi, Reference Kharkhurin and Charkhabi2021; Rhodes, Reference Rhodes1961; Runco, Reference Runco2003; Simonton, Reference Simonton, Runco and Albert1990), 7Cs (Curiosity, Complexity, Challenge, Connection, Collaboration, Confidence, Creation; Lubart, Reference Lubart2017), and 8Ps (Purpose, Press, Person, Problem, Process, Product, Propulsion, Public; Sternberg & Karami, Reference Sternberg and Karami2022). These models outline different dimensions of creativity that should be considered when studying the subject matter. These frameworks highlight the multifaceted nature of creativity, suggesting that a single dimension cannot fully capture it. A holistic approach incorporating multiple perspectives and methodologies is recommended to evaluate creativity effectively, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its dynamic and varied expressions.

Many assessment instruments have been crafted to evaluate various facets of creativity. Integrating these tools within multilingualism research facilitates a holistic exploration of the interconnection between linguistic diversity and creative thinking.

Rather than compiling an extensive yet non-exhaustive inventory of creativity assessment instruments, it is prudent to delineate the dimensions of creativity as identified by the models above and offer illustrative examples of assessment tools pertinent to each dimension.

The first dimension, potential creativity, focuses on the underlying cognitive processes and habitual patterns essential across a diverse spectrum of creative activities. This dimension assesses the foundational capabilities that enable creative thought and innovation. Here belong the divergent thinking tests such as ATTA, RIBS, and EPoC, but also a test of structured imagination (the IAC), which probes an ability to violate a standard set of category properties, helping to think outside the box. Kharkhurin (Reference Kharkhurin2009) used this test to demonstrate that bilinguals show greater ability for non-standard thinking than monolinguals.

The second dimension, creative personality, entails a scholarly inquiry into identifying and elucidating the traits, characteristics, and cognitive styles that differentiate individuals with high levels of creativity from their less creative counterparts. This investigative domain aims to delineate the specific psychological and behavioral markers associated with enhanced creative potential. It includes a direct assessment of creative personality. For example, the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, Reference Gough1979) identifies personality traits associated with creativity through adjectives that individuals select to describe themselves. The Creative Person Profile (Martinsen, Reference Martinsen2011) measures emotional instability, ambition, associative orientation, motivation, need for originality, agreeableness, and flexibility. This dimension also includes a range of assessments of creative self-perception, which embraces several related ideas of self-rated creativity, creative personal identity, creative metacognition, and creative self-efficacy (Kharkhurin, Reference Kharkhurin2017a). For example, the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena & Torrance, Reference Khatena and Torrance1998) assesses individuals’ perceptions of their creativity by asking them to evaluate their creative abilities and attitudes towards creativity. The Creative Mindset Scale (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2014) measures beliefs about the malleability of creativity, assessing whether individuals view creative abilities as fixed traits or skills that can be developed. In addition, this dimension includes assessments for motivation for creativity, such as the Creativity Motivation Scale (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Hoxha, Aljughaiman, Gómez-Arízaga, Gucyeter, Ponomareva and Ziegler2018), which evaluates an individual’s drive towards engaging in creative endeavors, such as learning, accomplishing, and doing new things. This dimension may also encompass evaluations of particular personality traits validated as creativity-related characteristics. For example, openness to experience and extraversion from the Big Five personality traits (e.g., Gosling et al., Reference Gosling, Rentfrow and Swann2003) or tolerance and intolerance of ambiguity (Budner, Reference Budner1962). It also contains assessments of cognitive styles in creative problem-solving, such as the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (Kirton, Reference Kirton1999), distinguishing between more adaptive (structured) and innovative (unstructured) approaches. Finally, given that research on bilingual creativity is still conducted with children, one can use the Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Renzulli et al., Reference Renzulli, Hartman and Callahan1971) to evaluate learning aptitude, motivational levels, creative personality traits, and leadership capabilities in young learners.

The third dimension, creative perception, emphasizes an individual’s capacity to discern creative qualities within oneself, others, and the surrounding environment. There is an opinion that the genesis of creative thinking is rooted in creative perception (Kharkhurin & Charkhabi, Reference Kharkhurin and Charkhabi2021). First, we notice creative elements and then contemplate our observations. This process of contemplation initiates creative thinking. Preference for complexity was identified as one of these creative elements, which can be assessed by the Barron-Welsh Art Scale (Barron & Welsh, Reference Barron and Welsh2005), measuring creativity and aesthetic sensitivity through preferences for abstract images.

The fourth dimension evaluates the environment, whether in workplaces, schools, or communities, that fosters and enhances the generation of new ideas, innovative solutions, and creative outcomes. A creative environment fosters creativity by providing psychological safety for risk-taking, embracing diversity for richer perspectives, and offering autonomy to pursue individual interests. Essential resources and a stimulating physical space encourage exploration and idea generation. Intellectual challenges provoke deep thinking, while effective collaboration and open communication facilitate the exchange of ideas. Recognizing and rewarding creative efforts further motivates creativity. Most assessment tools were developed for organizational settings. For example, the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (Isaksen et al., Reference Isaksen, Lauer and Ekvall1999) measures the climate for creativity and innovation within organizations or groups. It assesses environmental and situational factors that can facilitate or hinder creative output. The KEYS (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron1996) assesses organizational climate factors that affect creativity, including encouragement of creativity, autonomy, resources, pressures, and organizational impediments. Team Climate Inventory (Anderson & West, Reference Anderson and West1998) measures aspects of team climate conducive to innovation, such as participative safety, support for innovation, vision, and task orientation. Several instruments have been developed to evaluate the creative school environment, such as Creative Climate in the School Questionnaire (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2011) and Support for Creativity in a Learning Environment (Richardson & Mishra, Reference Richardson and Mishra2018). Lebuda and her colleagues (Reference Lebuda, Jankowska and Karwowski2020) constructed the Climate for Creativity in Parent–Child Relationship Questionnaire to measure and diagnose parental behaviors that may either stimulate or block a child’s creative development.

The fifth dimension, creative product or manifest creativity (Fürst & Grin, Reference Fürst and Grin2018), is directed toward the observable outputs of creativity, including specific interests, activities, and achievements within particular domains. The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Peterson and Higgins2005) measures an individual’s creative achievements across various domains, such as the arts, science, writing, and invention. It assesses creative productivity and the real-world application of creative ideas. The Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (Silvia et al., Reference Silvia, Rodriguez, Beaty, Frith, Kaufman, Loprinzi and Reiter-Palmon2021) assesses everyday creative behaviors and activities. It is designed to capture the frequency and diversity of creative engagement in daily life, offering insights into an individual’s creative potential and habits.

These tools present various ways of assessing creativity, from quantifying individual creative potential to identifying environmental factors that affect creative output and specific cognitive strategies in problem-solving. These instruments, when integrated into research methodologies, have the potential to expand the scope and understanding of the MCC.