ISSN: 1579-9794

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence

through Different Types of Creativity

La predicción de la inteligencia cultural de los estudiantes

de traducción mediante distintos tipos de creatividad

OURIA SADRNIA

pouria.Sadrnia@yahoo.com

University of Isfahan

OHAMMADTAGHI SHAHNAZARI

m.shahnazari@fgn.ui.ac.ir

University of Isfahan

Fecha de recepción: 01/08/2021

Fecha de aceptación: 20/03/2023

Abstract. Translators are reputed to work not only within languages but also

across cultures. Intercultural interactions can be carried out when the

translator is creative enough. The present paper intends to determine the

pivotal types of creativity which can predict the translators' cultural

intelligence in cross-cultural interaction. 103 translation students were

chosen to participate in the study through convenient sampling. Kaufman

Scale of Creativity (2012) and Cultural Intelligence Scale (2007) were

administered to measure participants' types of creativity and cultural

intelligence. Results of the Pearson correlation attested that the Kaufman

scale of creativity is moderately correlated with the cultural intelligence

scale. Multiple regression analysis revealed that among the different

components of creativity, scholarly, self, and artistic were the best predictors

of translation students' cultural intelligence. Implications of the study for

translation training courses and professional translation agencies are

advised to introduce the idea of creative types in training or hiring

translators.

Keywords: Cultural intelligence, Self-creativity, Scholarly, Artistic,

Translation Students

Resumen: Los traductores tienen fama de trabajar no solo entre los

idiomas, sino también entre culturas. Las interacciones interculturales se

pueden llevar a cabo cuando el traductor es suficientemente creativo. El

presente artículo tiene la intención de determinar los tipos fundamentales de

creatividad que puedan predecir la inteligencia cultural de los traductores en

la interacción intercultural. Se eligieron 103 estudiantes de traducción para

10 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

participar en el estudio mediante un muestreo conveniente. Se

administraron la Escala de creatividad de Kaufman (2012) y la Escala de

inteligencia cultural (2007) para medir los tipos de creatividad e inteligencia

cultural de los participantes. Los resultados de la correlación de Pearson

atestiguaron que la escala de creatividad de Kaufman está moderadamente

correlacionada con la escala de inteligencia cultural. El análisis de regresión

múltiple reveló que, entre los diferentes componentes de la creatividad, el

académico, el propio y el artístico eran los mejores predictores de la

inteligencia cultural de los estudiantes de traducción. Las implicaciones del

estudio para los cursos de formación en traducción y las agencias de

traducción profesionales pueden ser introducir la idea de los tipos de

creatividad en la formación o la contratación de traductores.

Palabras clave: Inteligencia cultural, Auto-creatividad, Erudito, Artístico,

Estudiantes de traducción

1. I

NTRODUCTION

With the rapid pace of technological advancement, cross-cultural

communication invariably procures much attention within the borders of

international relations. One of the chief objectives of translation is to play a

role in international contexts. Paul (2006) posits that cultural globalization

can foster the circulation of ideas among different communities which,

consequently, brings about cross-cultural interconnectedness. Globalization

helps the people of a distinct culture to interact effectively; more precisely,

globalization prepares the ground for intercultural communication

(Montagliani & Giacalone, 1998; Zakaria, 2000). Cavanaugh (2007)

maintains that the real essence of globalization predisposes such

indispensable ideas of navigating among a myriad of cultures. Taking such

ideas into consideration, cultural competence is a must for anyone wishing

to have efficacious interactions among cultures. Translators as the epitome

of intercultural mediators (Rojo & Antuñano, 2013) and contact points cross-

culturally (Malyuga et al., 2018) can foster communication among cultures.

Translators are now more than ever involved in mediating among various

cultures (Liddicoat, 2016), making them appear socially and intellectually

cognizant of the receptor languages' cultural norms. House (2015) stresses

the importance of context for translators; that is, the translators must be

culturally adept in recognizing the target cultures' norms. What is more, the

most crucial competence in communicating among various foreign cultures

is to have cultural intelligence (referred to as CQ), a new concept proposed

by Earley and Ang (2003). Drawing on some extant ideas and concepts,

cultural intelligence acts as a creative role for individuals mediating across

borders. The relatively new concept enables the mediators to adjust

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 11

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

themselves quickly with less stress in different cultures (Ghonsooly &

Shalchi, 2013). Thomas and Inkson (2005) believe that individuals with high

cultural intelligence can be acquainted well with a foreign culture, which

makes them appear more natural in the process of translating in order not to

commit cultural mistakes when communicating. Rafieyan (2016) highlights

that cultural intelligence is crucial in developing cross-cultural competence;

as a result, translators with a high level of CQ can communicate effectively

in the target language's culture. By and large, translators are exposed to

domestic (dealing with indigenous and regional cultures as in intralingual

translation) and cross-cultural situations (dealing with other cultures and

languages as in interlingual translation). This interrelation has encapsulated

the idea that translators should be as creative as possible to translate in

such challenging cultural contexts.

Albeit the idea of creativity in research has gained sound scholarly

attention ranging from business to education (Altinay et al., 2020), little

research has focused on the avenue of Translation Studies. Creative

behaviour ensures the utmost communication among different agents in

cross-cultural relations. Translators, as creative agents, can facilitate

communications. The current study stresses the important aspect of cultural

intelligence that has not been addressed to our knowledge. Translation

students should possess intercultural competence to function desirably in

cross-cultural contexts. The idea of cultural intelligence proves that

intercultural mediators must have apposite creativity to function in those

cultural settings. Translation students should be acquainted with different

cultures to translate as clearly as possible. The study does not assess the

actual translation performance; rather, it seeks to see what types of creativity

can predict translators' cultural intelligence.

The paper is divided into 8 parts. Section 2 discusses the idea of

Cultural Intelligence, its definition, and an overview of the field of Translation

Studies. The next section, section 3, deals with issues regarding creativity

and Translation Studies. Section 4 introduces and examines the experiment

to answer the relevant research questions and hypotheses. Sections 5 and 6

deal with results and discussion, respectively, and lastly, sections 7 and 8

discuss possible implications and conclusions.

2. C

ULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

Cultural intelligence (CQ) is viewed as one of the multiple types of

intelligence, sharing some features with social and emotional intelligence.

One major difference between other types of intelligence and CQ is that the

new construct concentrates on the role of culture and cultural

communications (Morley et al., 2010). Cultural intelligence is defined as an

12 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

individual's capacity to function efficaciously in diverse cultural settings

(Earley & Ang, 2003). In a similar vein, Brislin, Worthley, and Macnab (2006)

assert that the construct delineates people's ability to prosper in multicultural

settings by showing cultural awareness of different cultures and revering the

common ground of those cultures. Unlike its predecessors, such as social

intelligence (SI) and emotional intelligence (EI), CQ is new due to its

connection with cultural context, cultural values, cultural systems, and

cultural differences. The construct is a relatively new idea applied in different

disciplines ranging from entrepreneurial studies, marketing, education, and

Translation Studies (Altinay et al., 2020; Xu, Liu & Pang, 2019; Rafieyan,

2016). Over the past few years, the construct has received scholarly

attention within the avenues of Translation and Interpreting Studies (T& I

Studies); nonetheless, little literature exists within the aforementioned

avenues.

Earley and Ang (2003) classified CQ into four distinct domains,

including metacognitive, cognitive, motivation, and behaviour. Each domain

shows some aspects of the intercultural intelligence of individuals which

enable them to function in cross-cultural settings. Metacognitive refers to the

mental process by which individuals attempt to understand and learn about

other cultures. Cognitive, on the other side, shows individuals' competence

in other cultures' practices, norms, and conventions learned through

personal experience and education. Motivation enunciates individuals'

desire, energy, and attention to grasp knowledge on how to function in

distinctively diverse cultural settings. And lastly, behavioural refers to

individuals' awareness of the verbal or non-verbal rules of cultural etiquette

when interacting with individuals from various cultural settings. More

recently, Bücker et al. (2016) summarized these four domains into two

separate categories: Mental and action-focused. The mental domain

encompasses cognitive and metacognitive domains, whereas the action-

focused domain entails motivation and behaviour.

Early studies of CQ tended to envelop individuals' ability to cope with

problems in the academic areas, but the recent scientific trend of CQ falls

into disciplines other than the classroom setting (Sternberg & Detterman,

1986). Studying stress and anxiety of international travellers, Ramsey,

Leonel, and Gomes (2011) asserted that building CQ can decrease the level

of strain and stress. It is believed that cultural intelligence exerts an influence

on individuals' performance. For instance, Davis (2009) stipulates that

building CQ in the Canadian forces can facilitate their success in a

multicultural environment.

In 2012, McNab and Worthley attempted to find the correlation

between CQ and individuals' characteristics such as management, working

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 13

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

experience, general self-efficacy, and travel experience. They collected

samples from 370 managers and management students. The result revealed

that CQ is positively associated with general self-efficacy. Rockstuhl et al.

(2011) evaluated the effectiveness of CQ in the global market. Their results

suggested that CQ is seen as an important element of leadership in the

global world.

Considering the characteristics of CQ in the light of previous studies, it

is believed that CQ can broaden its horizons far beyond cross-cultural

settings to the individuals themselves (Westby, 2007). Brislin et al. (2006)

assert that CQ enables individuals to communicate in two different cultural

settings, one is in their cultural setting and the other one is in a foreign

cultural context. This will eventually lead to finding some similarities between

our own culture and those of foreign ones.

2.1 Cultural Intelligence and Translation

Cross-cultural studies are immense in educational settings, one of the

exponents of which is the study conducted by Boers and Demescheleer

(2001). Their sample comprised of 76 French students at the University of

Libre de Bruxelles. They wanted to measure the presumed impact of

intercultural differences among language learners on their interpretations of

imageable idioms. The participants in this study were asked to guess the de-

contextualized L2 idioms' meanings, most of which had been said to have an

intermediate level of semantic transparency. The result showed that the

majority of the respondents were unsuccessful in guessing the idioms'

meanings.

Olk (2003) tried to assess the impact of British culture on the

translation performance of 19 students of English who had a proficient

command of the German language. In this think-aloud protocol study, the

participants were questioned about their translation approaches immediately

after the task of translation. The text to be translated entailed many cultural

references. The results were discussed through the lens of knowledge

problems; 57 per cent of the cultural items did not include any knowledge

problems, whereas 35 and 8 per cent discerned overt and covert knowledge

problems, respectively.

Elyildirim (2008) replicated the study conducted by Olk (2003). In this

study, 50 Turkish students majoring in English were asked to translate the

text used in Olk (2003). Since the sample size was quite larger than the one

used by Olk (2003), TAP was not employed. However, some students were

asked about the strategies they used in translating cultural items. Results

showed that Turkish students encountered a similar problem in the task of

translation, namely cultural references. What is more, they showed difficulty

14 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

in apprehending the text. This study added another reason for translating

texts embedded into cultural items.

Exploring the effects lying in cultural distance, Rafieyan (2016)

pointed to see how cultural distance would affect the translation performance

and knowledge of students in the task of translation. To take the purpose in

mind, he asked two different groups of students of translation to participate

in the study. One group was the German undergraduate students majoring

in English translation and the other one was South Korean students. The

findings revealed that the farther the distance, the less cultural knowledge

the students shared. More precisely, students who had a farther cultural

distance shared less cultural knowledge and vice versa.

The effect of CQ and writing ability is also discussed in the

educational setting. Peivandi (2011) assessed the relationship between the

writing ability of English students in Iran and their level of CQ. The results

revealed that two subclasses of CQ (motivational and cognitive CQ) were

the predictor of CQ. Furthermore, it is shown that a significantly positive

association exists between motivation and cognitive CQ with writing ability.

So far, studies pertinent to the role of CQ in academic performance

have addressed various issues such as writing ability, translating cultural

items, highlighting cultural knowledge, and so forth. This study, however,

draws on the role of CQ and different types of creativity. The next section

discusses the role of creativity and its importance in Translation Studies.

3. C

REATIVITY

Creativity plays a crucial role in different fields, such as education

(Sawyer et al., 2003; Pope, 2005), business (Amanile & Khaire, 2008), and

Translation Studies (Ferez & Meseguer, 2018). The concept is well-defined

by Amabile (1983) as the novelty of ideas, procedures, products, and

performance, ensuring potentiality to individuals or organizations.

Truth be told, creativity, unlike its definition, is difficult to measure and

operationalize (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Pretty much in the same vein, Rojo

and Meseguer (2018) highlight a long-standing debate over the innateness

of creativity. The concept seems to hold two opposing standpoints in the

eyes of researchers. Some view creativity as a domain-general trait and

some researchers believe that creativity is a domain-specific trait. It is

argued that the advocates of the latter hold a strong belief that individuals

are specifically creative only in one part, whereas researchers supporting the

former share the idea that individuals can be creative not merely in one part,

but also, they tend to show creativity in other domains.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 15

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

A myriad of tests and self-reports have focused on exploring the

generic or specific domain of creativity, such as the Inventory of Creative

Behaviors (Batey, 2007), the Creative Behavior Inventory short version

(Dollinger, 2003), the Biographical and the Creative Achievement

Questionnaire (Carson, Peterson, and Higgins, 2005), and Creativity Domain

Questionnaire (Kaufman & Baer, 2004). Silvia et al. (2012) evaluate the

above-mentioned self-reports. They posit that the Creativity Domain

Questionnaire (CDQ) is based on individuals' self-concepts, whereas the

other ones concentrate on accomplishments and individuals' observable

behaviours. This highlights the importance and applicability of CDQ against

those three prominent self-reports. This questionnaire measures individuals'

creative preferences (self-concepts), galvanizing other studies such as

McConnell and Strain's (2007). Self-concepts in terms of creativity are

appealing in that individuals themselves evaluate their traits upon a specific

ability, relationship, and so on. The plausible contribution of such self-belief

studies shows the crucial role of individuals' decision-making in different

contexts (Silvia et al., 2012).

Drawing on what Silvia et al. (2012) believe about different self-reports

of creativity, this study is based on Kaufman's (2012) exploratory study,

which shows five components of creativity: Everyday/self,

mechanical/scientific, performance, scholarly, and artistic. The scale of K-

DOCS developed by Kaufman (2012) showed that there is an association

between psychological constructs and components of creativity. For

example, self/every day, which is defined as self-expression of yourself

against other individuals appropriately and originally (Ivcecix & Mayer,

2009), is tantamount to a creative lifestyle (Ivcecix & Mayer, 2009),

interpersonal creativity (Kerr & Vuyk, 2013) and interpersonal and

intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner, 2000). The self/everyday component

shows how individuals are capable of understanding themselves and others

and how they communicate in everyday contexts; moreover, this creativity

ensures that individuals maintain professional and healthy lives (Kaufman,

2012). Entrepreneurship involves dealing with other business agents in the

process of business formation; therefore, creative behaviour plays a

significant role in deteriorating the challenges (Fillis & Rentschler, 2010; Ko

& Butler, 2007; Morris & Kuratko, 2002). This highlights the fact that self-

creativity can be regarded as a relevant construct for boosting the

effectiveness of the entrepreneurs' performance (Altinay et al., 2020).

Studies relevant to the association between personality type and

translation performance are quite vast in Translation Studies (Bontempo et

al., 2014; Karimnia & Mahjubi, 2013; Raees Yazdi, 2013). The Big Five

Personality represents a continuum in which individuals can know about

16 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

their personality traits. The Big Five is composed of openness,

agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Although empirical

studies show no consistency of The Big Five with sub-scales of the K-

DOCS, some illuminating insights are noteworthy. Batey and Furnham

(2006) explore adults' creativity and their personality type. The findings

showed that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to

experience were positive predictors of daily creativity, whereas neuroticism

was a negative predictor. In another study, Batey et al. (2010) showed that

the only predictor of creativity was openness to experience, whereas Krum

et al. (2018) posited that neuroticism was correlated negatively with general

creativity. Despite such discrepancies and inconsistencies, Batey and

Furnham (2006) assert that individuals' creativity can be affected by

individual differences. Since the scale of K-DOCS has not been used in the

field of Translation Studies despite its comprehensive coverage of previous

scales such as MBTI and The Big Five Personality Trait, this study enjoys/

benefits from its applicability.

3.1 Creativity and Translation

Creativity in the field of Translation Studies has always been on the

part of the act of translation (Cifuentes Férez & Fenollar, 2017; Rojo &

Ramos, 2016; Rojo & Meseguer, 2018). Rojo and Meseguer (2017) posit

that the twentieth century saw translation as an activity of problem-solving

that began to immerse the need to define and descry creativity into its

avenues. Riccardi (1998) experimented to see the relationship between

creativity and experience. The result of his study revealed that professional

translators are more creative than student translators. Contrary to what

Riccardi (1998) achieved, the study carried out by Tiselius and Jenset

(2011) divulged that creativity and experience have a negative correlation;

that is, professional translators tend to lose their creativity as they become

experienced.

Working on the influence of negative and positive feedback on

creativity, Rojo and Ramos (2016) showed that positive feedback affected

the creativity of both expert and novice translators; however, novice

translators enjoyed more the feedback by showing a higher level of

improvement. On the other hand, negative feedback was revealed to be

effective in the accuracy of both novice and expert translators, but the

strength of which was high in the community of professionals. The study has

manifested that experience and creativity are significantly correlated. Albeit,

the results are applicable in certain domains, such as audio description.

As stipulated earlier about the correlation between different

personality traits and creativity, Hubscher-Davidson (2009, 2013a, 2013b,

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 17

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

2013c) substantiated the previous studies. She showed that emotional

intelligence plays a significant role in the outcome of literary translation.

Furthermore, she posits that there exists a significantly positive association

between emotional intelligence and translation performance. Apart from

emotional intelligence, other constructs such as self-efficacy, self-esteem,

and negative affectivity pertinent to creativity have been explored in the field.

For instance, Bontempo et al. (2014) and Bontempo & Napier (2009, 2011)

indicate that traits pertinent to organizational capacity (self-efficacy and goal

orientation) are correlated positively to sign language interpreters.

Conversely, this trait is negatively correlated to negative affectivity.

Guilford (1950) proposed a model of creativity in Translation Studies

that included nine psychological domains of creativity. These nine domains

have been curtailed into three domains namely fluency, flexibility, and

novelty. Bayer-Hohenwarter (2009, 2010, 2011, 2013) completed this model

by adding the domain of acceptability. In this model of creativity, fluency

refers to routine behaviour, flexibility is applied concerning translation shifts,

novelty shows the presence of unique solutions in the translation, and finally,

acceptability refers to the adequacy of translation. Flexibility is a good

indicator of creativity in a set of optional translation shifts and obligatory

translation shifts such as concentration, modification, and abstraction. Her

study suggests that the successful performance of translation is not

described by applying a great wealth of creative shifts but by the felicitous

competence in knowing when to apply creative shifts in the task of

translation (Bayer-Hohenwarter, 2011).

Rojo (2017) calls for a dainty classification of creativity research within

the milieu of cognitive Translation Studies as follows: (A) Studying the

creative person (Translator), (B) exploring cognitive processes involved in

creativity, (C) Studying factors yielding in creativity, and (D) Studying final

products (Translation) which is the outcome of those cognitive processes.

No study has worked on finding the creative type of translators to see which

types of creativity are more applicable to translating and applying creative

shifts in the task of translation. This study, subsequently, focuses on the first

item of research proposed by Rojo.

4. T

HE STUDY

The present empirical study intends to determine the role of creativity

in translating students' cultural intelligence; that is, what types of creativity

are needed when communicating in cross-cultural settings.

18 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

4.1 Research questions

RQ1: Is there any relationship between creativity type as general and

translation students' cultural intelligence?

RQ2: Is there any relationship between components of creativity and

translation students' cultural intelligence?

RQ3: Which of the components of creativity can be a good predictor of

translation students' cultural intelligence?

4.2. Method

4.2.1 Participants

103 translation and interpreting students were asked to participate in

the study (N=103). The sample was recruited from both B.A. and M.A.

students of translation majoring in Translation Studies at different

universities in Iran. Participants' ages ranged from 19 to 36 (M=23.19 years,

SD=2.48). Participation in the research was completely voluntary. Since the

focus of the study was on Translation Students, no professional translator

was reported to take part in the study.

4.2.2 Procedure

The study was conducted from February to March 2021 in Iran. During

this period, there was a nationwide lockdown as well as campus closure as

per the regulation set forth by Iran's Health Organization because of the

Covid-19 pandemic. All universities' classes were being held on online

platforms. Following such a critical situation, the researchers collected the

data through online data collection tools. The questionnaires were first

written in an online survey tool, then the link of which was created

(https://porsa.irandoc.ac.ir/s/TZkMDZ). This link was sent to the translation

students by their university teachers. In the self-report questionnaire, the

researchers explained the general goal of the research in a paragraph and

asked the participant to take part in the study. To respect participants'

informed consent, an email seeking their consent was sent. Immediately

after filling out the consent form, participants were guided to answer

questions pertinent to demographic information such as age, gender,

languages spoken, stays abroad, and the university. Following demographic

information, the participants were first required to respond to the K-DOCS

and then the CQ questionnaire. A thank-you email was immediately sent to

the participants when they submitted their responses. The researchers

ensured that the participants will receive the published paper as soon as it is

published. To respect anonymity, participants were coded as numbers.

Analyses of the results were performed through IBM SPSS STATISTICS 26.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 19

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

4.2.3 Instruments

Before measuring participants' creativity type and level of cultural

intelligence, Cronbach's alpha reliability indices for cultural intelligence and

creativity and its components were gauged. The results showed that the

reliability indices were as follows; cultural intelligence (α = 0.82), creativity

(α = 0.91), scholarly (α = 0.70), self (α = 0.74), performance (α = 0.86),

artistic (α = 0.80) and mechanical-scientific (α = 0.83). It should be noted that

Dörnyei and Taguchi (2009) and Tseng et al. (2006) believe that 0.70 is the

adequate reliability index for an instrument. This suggests that the

instruments employed in this study enjoyed appropriate reliability indices.

Table 1 shows the reliability indices for the instruments:

Cronbach's Alpha Reliability for cultural intelligence and components of

creativity

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Cultural Intelligence 820 20

Creativity 907 50

Self 738 11

Scholarly 695 11

Performance 863 10

Mechanical-Scientific 827 9

Artistic 803 9

Table 1. Cronbach's Alpha Reliability for cultural intelligence and components

of creativity

Source. Elaborated by the authors

To measure students' types of creativity, the Kaufman Scale of

Creativity (2012) was administered. This scale shows different creativities

such as self/everyday, performance, scholarly, artistic, and mechanical/

scientific. The questionnaire is composed of 50 questions. Items 1-11

assess self/everyday creativity, 12-22 measure scholarly creativity, 23-32

gauge performance, 33-41 assess mechanical/scientific, and items 42-50

measure artistic. The items of the questionnaire are arranged on a 5-point

Likert scale (from much less creative to much more creative).

To gauge the students' cultural intelligence, Cultural Intelligence Scale

(CQS) developed by Ang et al. (2007) was administered. The instrument is

composed of 20 questions (items 1-4 for metacognitive), (items 5-10 for

cognitive), (items 11-15 for motivation), and (items 16-20 for behaviour). The

20 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

items on the self-report are arranged based on a 7-point Likert scale (from

strongly disagree to strongly agree).

5. R

ESULTS

Before discussing the results of the study, assumptions regarding the

lack of multivariate and univariate outliers as well as normality assumptions

were examined. The standardized scores (Z-scores) were computed for the

components of creativity to check the lack of univariate outliers. As shown in

the descriptive statistics for the Z-scores in Table 1, the results indicated

none of the variables had Z-scores higher than +/- 3.29 (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2014). This suggests that the present data did not suffer from any

univariate outliers. Mahalanobis Distances (MD) was computed to check the

lack of multivariate outliers. The data included multivariate outliers because

the maximum MD of 26.10 was higher than the critical value of chi-square at

0.001 levels for six variables, i.e., 22.45. An inspection of the data revealed

that ID number one, whose MD was 26.10, should be dropped out.

Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Scores; Testing Univariate and

Multivariate Outliers

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Cultural Intelligence 103 -2.51 2.12 0.0000 1.00000

Self 103 -2.29 2.21 0.0000 1.00000

Scholarly 103 -2.41 2.59 0.0000 1.00000

Performance 103 -1.58 2.44 0.0000 1.00000

Mechanical-Scientific 103 -1.77 2.46 0.0000 1.00000

Artistic 103 -1.74 2.28 0.0000 1.00000

Mahalanobis Distance 103 0.47 26.10 5.9417 3.82502

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Scores; Testing Univariate and

Multivariate Outliers

Source. Elaborated by the authors

The assumption of normality was checked through skewness and

kurtosis indices (Table 3). To see whether the assumption of normality is

retained, the skewness and kurtosis indices are supposed to be within the

ranges of ± 2 (Bachman, 2005, Bae & Bachman, 2010). As shown in Table

3, the assumption of normality was met in the current study.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 21

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Descriptive Statistics; Testing Normality of Data

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statist

Std.

Statist

Std.

Cultural Intelligence 103 -0.093 0.238 -0.672 0.472

Self 103 -0.227 0.238 -0.215

0.472

Scholarly 103 0.104 0.238 0.234

0.472

Performance

103

0.507

0.238

-0.343

0.472

Mechanical-Scientific 103 0.290 0.238 -0.469

0.472

Artistic

103

0.325

0.238

-0.465

0.472

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics; Testing Normality of Data

Source. Elaborated by the authors

To measure the strength of the correlation between the variables, i.e.,

creativity scale and cultural intelligence, the Pearson product-moment

correlation coefficient was used. The reason for adopting Pearson is that

homogeneity of variance and normal distribution were tested (Tables 2 and

3).

5.1 Research question 1

As our first research question, we postulated that a significantly

positive association exists between creativity and the level of cultural

intelligence. Analysis of the Pearson correlation showed that the correlation

between the CQ and the Kaufman Scale of Creativity is 0.49 (



) = 0.49 at

the level of 0.01 ( = 0.01). The result indicates that there is a moderate

linear relationship between CQ and components of creativity. Table 2 shows

the value of the correlation between the two variables.

Correlation between CQ and K-DOCS

Pearson Correlation

0.499

Sig. (2-failed)

103

0.000

103

Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4. Correlation between CQ and K-DOCS

Source. Elaborated by the author

5.2 Research question 2

The second research question seeks to find which of the components

of creativity can be perfectly correlated with cultural intelligence. Table 5

shows the correlational matrix among the variables.

22 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Correlations between CQ and sub-domains of Creativity

1 2 3 4 5 6

Cultural Intelligence

Self/ Everyday 0.448**

Scholarly 0.468** 0.622**

Performance 0.382** 0.490** 0.584**

Mechanical/ Scientific 0.284** 0.263** 0.300** 0.496**

Artistic 0.343** 0.259** 0.267** 0.596** 0.619**

Note: Correlation values spotted by double asterisks (**) are significant at p < 0.01

Table 5. Correlations between CQ and sub-domains of Creativity

Source. Elaborated by the authors

Results provided in Table 5 show that two components of creativity

are moderately correlated with cultural intelligence. Scholarly and self

/everyday creativity are correlated with CQ (



− ℎ  ) = 0.46

and (



− / ) = 0.49 at a confidence level of 0.01. Considering

the second research question, performance did not have a strong correlation

with CQ thus only self/every day is significantly correlated with CQ. Apart

from self/everyday creativity, scholarly showed a moderate correlation with

CQ. Among other components of creativity, mechanical/scientific appears to

have a weak correlation with CQ (



− ℎ/) = 0.28 at the

level of 0.01.

5.3 Research question 3

The third research question of the study was to determine which of the

components of creativity was the best predictor of cultural intelligence. A

linear regression using the backward method was run to predict cultural

intelligence through the five components of creativity. As displayed in Table

6, the regression model converged in three steps. All five components of

creativity entered the model in the first one. They predicted 34.4% of cultural

intelligence (R = 0.586, R

= 0.344). The mechanical-scientific component of

creativity was excluded in the second step to reduce the percentage of

prediction to 33.6%; i.e. (R = 0.580, R

= 0.336); and finally, the performance

component of creativity was excluded in the third step to reduce the

percentage of prediction to 32.8%; i.e. (R = 0.573, R

= 0.328). This shows

that artistic, self, and scholarly were the three best predictors of cultural

intelligence.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 23

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Model Summary; Predicting Cultural Intelligence through Components of

Creativity

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. error of the

Estimate

586

0.344

0.309

0.652

580

0.336

0.309

0.652

573

0.328

0.308

0.653

a. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly, Mechanical-Scientific, Performance

b. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly, Performance

c. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly

d. Dependent Variable: Cultural Intelligence

Table 6. Model Summary; Predicting Cultural Intelligence through Components

of Creativity

Source. Elaborated by the authors

Table 7 displays the results of the ANOVA test of the significance of

regression models at the three steps discussed above. The results indicated

that the regression model enjoyed statistical significance at first

(F (5, 96) = 10.05, p < 0.05, η

= 0.344 showing a large effect size), second

(F (4, 97) = 12.28, p < 0.05, η

= 0.336 representing a large effect size), and

third steps (F (3, 98) = 15.59, p < 0.05, η

= 0.328 showing a large effect

size).

ANOVA Tests of Significance of Regression Models

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 21.411 5 4.282 10.052 0.000

Residual 40.896 96 0.426

Total 62.307 101

Regression

20.951 4 5.238 12.285 0.000

Residual 41.355 97 0.426

Total 62.307 101

Regression

20.448 3 6.816 15.958 0.000

Residual 41.858 98 0.427

Total 62.307 101 4.282

a. Dependent Variable: Cultural Intelligence

b. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly, Mechanical-Scientific,

Performance

24 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

c. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly, Performance

d. Predictors: (Constant), Artistic, Self, Scholarly

Table 7. ANOVA Tests of Significance of Regression Models

Source. Elaborated by the authors

And finally, Table 8 displays the standardized (beta) and

unstandardized (b) regression coefficients in three steps. These coefficients

show the amount of change in the dependent variable (cultural intelligence)

due to changes in any of the predictors in terms of units of measurement (b)

and units of standard deviation (beta). For example, the b and beta values

for scholarly on the first step were 0.487 and 0.348. The unstandardized

regression coefficient of 0.487 indicated that if scholarly increased by one

unit, cultural intelligence increased by 0.487 units. On the other hand, the

standardized regression coefficient of 0.348 indicated that if scholarly

increased by one standard deviation, cultural intelligence increased by 0.348

standard deviations. The t-values associated with regression coefficients can

be examined to check the variables that would be excluded in the following

step.

The results for the first step indicated that scholarly was the best

predictor of cultural intelligence (b = 0.487, beta = 0.348, t = 2.94, p < 0.05);

whereas, mechanical-scientific (b = 0.099, beta = 0.115, t = 1.03, p > 0.05)

was the worst predictor of cultural intelligence; that would be excluded on

the next step. It should be noted that performance had a negative

contribution to cultural intelligence in the first step.

Regression Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.628 0.556 2.930 0.004

Self 0.378 0.155 0.262 2.432 0.017

Scholarly 0.487 0.165 0.348 2.946 0.004

Performance -.143 0.112 -0.171 -1.283 0.203

Mechanical-

Scientific

0.099 0.096 0.115 1.039 0.301

Artistic 0.202 0.111 0.215 1.827 0.071

2 (Constant) 1.677 0.554 3.029 0.003

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 25

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Self 0.375 0.155 0.260 2.415 0.018

Scholarly 0.487 0.165 0.349 2.949 0.004

Performance -0.119 0.109 -0.142 -1.086 0.280

Artistic 0.254 0.099 0.270 2.568 0.012

(Constant) 1.943 0.497 3.906 0.000

Self 0.344 0.153 0.239 2.251 0.027

Scholarly 0.409 0.149 0.292 2.750 0.007

Artistic 0.193 0.082 0.205 2.368

a. Dependent Variable: Cultural Intelligence

Table 8. Regression Coefficients

Source. Elaborated by the authors

The results for the second step indicated that scholarly was the best

predictor of cultural intelligence (b = 0.487, beta = 0.349, t = 2.94, p < 0.05);

while, performance (b = -0.119, beta = -0.142, t = -1.08, p > 0.05) was the

worst predictor of cultural intelligence; that would be excluded in the third

step. Finally, the results for the third step indicated that scholarly was the

best predictor of cultural intelligence (b = 0.409, beta = 0.292, t = 2.75,

p < 0.05); and artistic (b = 0.193, beta = 0.205, t = 2.36, p < 0.05), and self

(b = 0.344, beta = 0.239, t = 2.25, p < 0.05) were the second and third best

predictors of cultural intelligence.

6. D

ISCUSSION

The present paper seeks to determine which types of creativity can

predict translation students' cultural intelligence. Three research questions

were formulated to find which types of creativity play a role. Regarding the

first research question, a medium correlation was found between students'

cultural intelligence and their creativity type in general. Although the value of

the Pearson correlation is not a strong correlation, a moderate correlation

between the variables is shown. The reason for not having a strong

correlation may be due to other components of the scale of creativity. For

instance, some translation students might not be adept in creativities such

as mechanical or artistic since such creativities require studying other

disciplines. Henceforth, in filling out the self-report of the K-DOCS, the

students scored lower in some components of the questionnaire. The

existing medium correlation provides some insights; first of all, this

correlation shows that intercultural mediation requires creativity to some

points; that is, elements of creativity and innovation exist in cross-cultural

26 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

mediation. Such result substantiates previous findings and is in line with the

studies conducted by Adler (2002), Csikszentmihalyi (1988), Cernevičiūtė &

Strazdas (2014), all of which highlight and account for the importance of

creativity in different modes of cross-cultural communications. Secondly,

creativity in intercultural communications can foster the effectiveness of

communication (Malyuga et al., 2018; Paul, 2006). In Translation and

Interpreting Studies (T&I), cultural intelligence and creativity can make

excellent interpreters and translators dealing with other people from various

cultures by undergoing less stress, thus ensuring the ultimate goal, namely

translation or interpreting (Ghonsooly & Shalchi, 2013; Ramsey, Leonel, &

Gomes 2011). More specifically, translators and interpreters with greater

creativity scores benefit more from cultural intelligence, which in turn could

result in more efficient translating and interpreting practice than those with

lower creativity scores. One general explanation may be that the former

group may outperform the latter group in recognizing the target cultural

norms, values, and differences so that they can make wiser decisions on

choosing the most appropriate linguistic items to convey their messages.

This may be due to their more efficient mental processes, which could lead

to assessing different choices for a particular context and choosing the one

which would well match that context. Further research, of course, is needed

to see how more creative transition students with higher cultural intelligence

ability may differ from those with less creativity and lower cultural intelligence

in rendering a highly tangible cultural text or discourse in translating and

interpreting contexts.

The second research question sought to see which components of

creativity are significantly correlated with students' cultural intelligence. The

results showed that two components of creativity, namely scholarly and

self/every day, are moderately correlated with translation students' cultural

intelligence. Translators and interpreters are involved in translating from one

language into another. Culture is an inseparable part of communication

among various languages. As self/everyday creativity's definition implies

(Kaufman, 2012), it plays a significant role in understanding yourself and

others in different modes of communication; it then can be very practical in

translators' creativity to interact in various cultural settings. Another

correlated component is scholarly. It can be noted that the reason for the

such correlation is that translators are supposed to undergo some steps

when interacting in different cultural settings. Firstly, they need to come to

terms with the basic requirements of their own culture; secondly, they are

required to have sufficient knowledge of other cultures to which they are

translating. This knowledge cannot be obtained unless they explore and

delve more into different cultural norms and customs. Excavating other

cultures requires a sense of scholarly and a sense of curiosity to know more.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 27

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Generally speaking, for translating or interpreting various modes of culture,

two important types of creativity should be taken into account. Firstly,

self/everyday creativity is required to show how translators can understand

their own culture, other cultures, and ways of interacting with different

people. Secondly, the scholarly creativity type can help translators study and

find out about other cultures and languages to facilitate the effectiveness of

interaction.

The third research question asserts that artistic, self, and scholarly are

the best predictors of translation students' cultural intelligence. Since scarce

attention has been paid to the role of cultural intelligence and creativity in the

field of Translation and Interpreting, no prior research has focused on such

an idea before. Studies explored the correlation between creative lifestyle

(Ivcecix & Mayer, 2009), interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence

(Gardner, 2000), interpersonal creativity (Kerr & Vuyk, 2013) can be said to

be echoed in one of the predictors of cultural intelligence, i.e., self/everyday

creativity. Furthermore, as enunciated in the second research question,

scholarly and self/everyday creativity showed a moderate linear correlation

with cultural intelligence. The analysis of multiple regression introduced

other components of creativity, i.e., artistic, which can also predict

translators' cultural intelligence. The result would suggest that apart from

being cognizant of cultural norms and different modes of interaction and

exploring them, translators are required to have a sense of artistic creativity

in cross-cultural communications.

7. L

IMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of the study might exert a pivotal role in the translation

industry and pedagogy. Following the results, some practical implications

can be assumed. Before entering the course on translation and interpreting,

students can measure their type of creativity to see how much they are

talented in different components of creativity; this may enhance the

efficaciousness of their contribution, thus ensuring short and long-term

success in the field of translation and interpreting. For instance, Walczynski

(2020) suggests that admission into the courses of translator training should

be preceded by aptitude tests. In a similar vein, gauging the creativity of

translators before entering into a course might facilitate their success. Such

ideas are also discussed and suggested by scholars such as Timarová &

Salaets (2011), Schweda Nicholson (2005), and Zannirato (2013). Another

implication can be on the part of translation agencies. Based on translation

agencies' regulations in different parts of the world, translators must fulfil

some courses and workshops to be competent to work in the industry.

Commissioners and authorities of translation agencies can introduce the

idea of creativity type before any official examination to see if the candidates

28 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

can be ideal for the job. Taking into consideration the level of cultural

intelligence and the type of creativity, translators and interpreters can

flourish in their would-be future aims and goals, such as working in

agencies. Nonetheless, some limitations can be put forth concerning the

finding of the study. Firstly, it could have been noteworthy if the study had

incorporated the actual translation performance to see the effect of creativity

and cultural intelligence on translation performance. Secondly, the issue of

generalizability is at stake due to the relatively small sample size. To

generalize the findings, a larger sample size is needed in future studies.

Thirdly, this quantitative self-reported study might weaken or deteriorate the

power of statistical analysis; thus, a qualitative approach such as portfolio

information and interview can be applied to enrich the interpretation and

understanding of findings (Yang & Wang, 2020).

8. C

ONCLUSION

Translators and interpreters are constantly involved in translating from

one language into another. The nature of translating incorporates the

concept of culture; hence, translators are dealing with both languages and

cultures simultaneously. Dealing with different cultures and translating them

is not feasible without meeting some cultural requirements. These

requirements are felicitously manifested in cultural intelligence. Cross-

cultural interactions require creativity to some extent. The focus of the

present study was to see what types of creativity, i.e., scholarly,

self/everyday, artistic, mechanical/scientific, and performance postulated by

Kaufman (2012) can predict translators' cultural intelligence in cross-cultural

interactions. The findings revealed that scholarly, self/every day, and artistic

are the best predictors of translators' cultural intelligence. We hope that the

findings can serve a twofold contribution: one is to help extend the body of

knowledge on translation and cultural studies; secondly, we hope that such

findings can pave the way for further studies in the field.

EFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior.

South-Western College Publishing.

Altinay, L., Madanoglu, G. K., Kromidha, E., Nurmagambetova, A., &

Madanoglu, M. (2020). Mental aspects of cultural intelligence and self-

creativity of nascent entrepreneurs: The mediating role of

emotionality. Journal of Business Research, 131, 793-802.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.048

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 29

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2),

357-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader.

Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 101-109.

Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical Analysis for Language Assessment. (2nd

Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bae, J., & Bachman, L. F. (2010). An investigation of four writing traits and

two tasks across two languages. Language Testing 27(2), 213-235.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349470

Batey, M. D. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity.

University College London.

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A

critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, social, and General

Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355-429.

https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general

knowledge, and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and

individual differences, 20(5), 532-535.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008

Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. (2009). Translational creativity: how to measure the

unmeasurable. In S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen & I.M. Mees (Eds.),

Behind the mind: Methods, models, and results in translation process

research (pp. 39-59). Copenhagen Studies in Language 37.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1011267ar

_____ (2010). Comparing translational creativity scores of students and

professionals: Flexible problem-solving and/or fluent routine

behaviour? In S. Göpferich, F. Alves & I. Mees (Eds), New

Approaches in Translation Process Research (pp. 83-111).

Copenhagen Studies in Language 39. https://gams.uni-graz.at/o:tc-

101-12

_____ (2011). “Creative Shifts” as a Means of Measuring and Promoting

Translational Creativity. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta:

Translators’ Journal, 56(3), 663-692.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1008339ar

_____ (2013, August). Triangulating Translational Creativity Scores. In C.

Way, S. Vandepitte, R. Meylaerts & M. Bartlomiejczyk (Eds.), Tracks

30 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

and Treks in Translation Studies: selected papers from the EST

Congress, Leuven 2010, (pp. 63-85). Benjamins Translation Library

108. John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108

Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural

differences on learners' comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT

Journal, 55(3), 255-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.255

Bontempo, K., & Napier, J. (2009). Getting it right from the start: Program

admission testing of signed language interpreters. In C. V Angelelli &

H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and

interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice

(pp. 247-295). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv

_____ (2011). Evaluating emotional stability as a predictor of interpreter

competence and aptitude for interpreting. Interpreting, 13(1), 85-105.

https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.1.06bon

Bontempo, K., Napier, J., Hayes, L., & Brashear, V. (2014). Does personality

matter? An international study of sign language interpreter disposition.

Translation & Interpreting, 6(1), 23-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.12807/ti.10

6201.2014.a02

Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence:

Understanding behaviors that serve people's goals. Group &

Organization Management, 31(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059

601105275262

Bücker, J., Furrer, O., & Weem, T. P. (2016). Robustness and cross-cultural

equivalence of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). Journal of

Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 4(3),

300-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGM-05-2016-0022

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, Validity,

and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire.

Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15

326934crj1701_4

Cavanaugh, N. L. H. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Factors and measurement

[Master's thesis], University of Bergen.

Černevičiūtė, J., & Strazdas, R. (2014). Kūrybingumo sampratų raida: nuo

genijaus į kūrybines sistemas. Santalka: filosofija, komunikacija, 22(2),

113-125.

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 31

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Cifuentes-Férez, P., & Cutillas, P. M. (2018). Can self-esteem and creative

intelligence foster accuracy and creativity in professional translators?

Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1(2), 341-360. https://doi.org/10.10

75/tcb.00015.cif

Cifuentes-Férez, P., & Fenollar-Cortés, J. (2017). On the impact of self-

esteem, emotion regulation and emotional expressivity on student

translators' performance. Vigo International Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 14(1), 71-97.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity:

Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge

University Press.

Davis, K. D. (2009). Sex, gender and cultural intelligence in the Canadian

Forces. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 47(4), 430-455.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040903375091

Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and

creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 99-116.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00828.x

Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language

research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions

across cultures. Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.

Elyildirim, S. (2008). The importance of cultural knowledge in translation: A

partial replication of Olk (2003). Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, 131-144.

Fillis, I. R., & Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in

entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 18(01), 49-81.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495810000501

Gardner, H. E. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the

21st century. Hachette.

Ghonsooly, B., & Shalchy, S. (2013). Cultural Intelligence and Writing Ability:

Delving into Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Novitas-ROYAL

(Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 147-159.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. In American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

32 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In

Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 241-264). Palgrave

Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137025487_13

Hubscher-Davidson, S. E. (2009). Personal diversity and diverse

personalities in translation: A study of individual differences.

Perspectives: Studies in translatology, 17(3), 175-192.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903249380

_____ (2013a). The role of intuition in the translation process: A case study.

Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American

Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 8(2), 211-232.

https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.05hub

_____ (2013 b). Emotional Intelligence and Professional Translation. Paper

presented at the International Online Workshop on Affective factors in

Translation Process Research: To Feel or not to Feel? That is the

Question, Aston University.

_____ (2013). Emotional intelligence and Translation Studies: A new bridge.

Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 58(2), 324-

346. https://doi.org/10.7202/1024177ar

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the

life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152-165.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855259

James, P. (2006). Globalism, nationalism, tribalism: Bringing theory back in.

Pine Forge Press.

Karimnia, A., & Mahjubi, M. (2013). Individual differences and quality of

translation: A personality-based perspective. Psychology of language

and communication, 17(1), 37-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/plc-2013-

0003

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: development of the Kaufman

domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00297

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative—but not in

mathematics! Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical

studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.2190/26HQ-

VHE8-GTLN-BJJM

Kim, B. K., & Vuyk, M. A. (2013). Career development for creatively gifted

students. In K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer & B. Sriraman (Eds.)

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 33

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Creatively Gifted Students are not like Other Gifted Students (pp.

137-151). SensePublishers, Rotterdam. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-

94-6209-149-8_10

Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial

behavior. Business Horizons, 50(5), 365-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

bushor.2007.03.002

Krumm, G., Lemos, V., & Richaud, M. C. (2018). Personality and Creativity:

A Study in Spanish-Speaking Children. International Journal of

Psychological Research, 11(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112

084.2867

MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as

predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-

efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 62-71.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.12.001

Malyuga, E., Krouglov, A. V., & Tomalin, B. (2018). Linguo-cultural

competence as a cornerstone of translators' performance in the

domain of intercultural business communication. XLinguae, 11(2),

566-582. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.46

McConnell, A. R., & Strain, L. M. (2007). Content and structure of the self-

concept. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), The self in social

psychology (pp. 51–73). Psychology Press.

Montagliani, A., & Giacalone, R. A. (1998). Impression Management and

Cross-Cultural Adaption. The journal of social psychology, 138(5),

598-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549809600415

Morley, M. J., & Cerdin, J. L. (2010). Intercultural competence in the

international business arena. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089099

Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship:

Entrepreneurial development within organizations. South-Western

Pub.

Olk, H. (2003). Cultural knowledge in translation. ELT Journal, 57(2),

167-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.167

Peivandi, A. (2011). The relationship between CQ and IQ in writing ability of

adult Iranian EFL learners [Unpublished Master's thesis]. Ferdowsi

University of Mashhad.

Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. Psychology Press.

34 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Raees Yazdi, H. (2013). The effect of introvert and extrovert personality on

translation quality. Proceedings of International Conference on

Interdisciplinary Translation Studies, Mashhad, Iran.

Rafian, V. (2016). Relationship between Cultural Intelligence and Translation

of Culture-Bound Texts. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language

Research, 3(3), 173-184.

Rafieyan, V. (2016). Effect of Cultural Distance on Translation of Culture-

Bound Texts. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,

4(2), 67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.4n.2p.67

Ramsey, J. R., Leonel, J. N., Gomes, G. Z., & Monteiro, P. R. R. (2011).

Cultural intelligence's influence on international business travelers'

stress. Cross-Cultural Management, 18(1), 21-37.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104278

Riccardi, A. (1998). Interpreting strategies and creativity. Benjamins

Translation Library, 27, 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27.24ric

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond

general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of

cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross‐border leadership effectiveness in a

globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Rojo López, A. M.ª. (2017). The Role of Creativity. In J.W. Schwieter & A.

Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 350–

368). Wiley-Blackwell.

Rojo, A., & Caro, M. R. (2016). Can emotion stir translation skills? Defining

the impact of positive and negative emotions on translation

performance. In R.M. Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process

research (pp. 107-130). John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/btl.

128.06roj

Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive linguistics and

translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications.

Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 23. Walter de Gruyter.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943

Rojo, A., & Meseguer, P. (2018). Creativity and Translation Quality:

Opposing Enemies or Friendly Allies? HERMES-Journal of Language

and Communication in Business, 57, 79-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/

hjlcb.v0i57.106202

Pouria Sadrnia y Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari 35

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

Rojo, A., & Ramos, M. (2018). The role of expertise in emotion regulation:

Exploring the effect of expertise on translation performance under

emotional stir. In La I. Cruz & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), New Directions

in Cognitive and Empirical Translation Process Research (pp. 105-

129). Benjamins.

Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R. J., Feldman, D. H.,

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Creativity and

development. Oxford University Press.

https://www.academia.edu/20224552/Creativity_and_development

Schweda Nicholson, N. (2005). Personality characteristics of interpreter

trainees: The Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The Interpreters’

Newsletter, 13, 109-142.

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012).

Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical

evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1),

19-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024071

Sternberg, R. J., & D. K. Detterman, (Eds.) (1986). What Is Intelligence?

contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition contemporary

viewpoints on its nature and definition. Ablex Pub. Corp.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. (6th

ed.). Pearson Education.

Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2005). Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for a

Global Workforce. Consulting To Management, 16(1), 5–9.

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/people-skills-global-work

place/docview/215899198/se-2

Timarová, Š., & Salaets H. (2011). Learning styles, motivation and cognitive

flexibility in interpreter training. Self-selection and aptitude. In F.

Pöchhacker & M. Liu (Eds.), Aptitude for Interpreting (pp. 33-54). John

Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.68

Tiselius, E., & Jenset, G. B. (2011). Process and product in simultaneous

interpreting. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and

Strategies of Process Research Integrative Approaches in Translation

Studies (pp. 269-300). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94

Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to

assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary

36 Predicting Translation Students' Cultural Intelligence […]

Hikma 22(1) (2023), 9 - 36

acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/

applin/ami046

Walczynski, M. (2021). “Will I make it or will I make a fool of myself”: Polish-

English certified interpreters’ experience of anxiety. Onomázein:

Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción de la Pontificia

Universidad Católica de Chile, 8, 83-103.

https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.ne8.03

Westby, C. (2007). Being smart in a diverse world. Commun&ication

Disorders Quarterly, 29(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108

31486

Xu, X., Liu, W., & Pang, W. (2019). Are emotionally intelligent people more

creative? A meta-analysis of the emotional intelligence–creativity link.

Sustainability, 11(21), 6123, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216123

Yanxia Y., & Xiangling W. (2020). Predicting student translators'

performance in machine translation post-editing: interplay of self-

regulation, critical thinking, and motivation, Interactive Learning

Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1786407

Zakaria, N. (2000). The effects of cross‐cultural training on the acculturation

process of the global workforce. International Journal of Manpower,

21(6), 492-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437720010377837

Zannirato, A. (2013). The quest for ‘perfection’. The Interpreter and

Translator Trainer, 7(1), 107-127.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798846