urpose of the research program of which this is a part was to TE develop and test an instrument that would be sensitive to cross-national similarities and differences and to examine children's responses in the light of hypotheses about integrative and dominative cultures.
DEFINITIONSThe terms integrative and dominative have been defined in previous studies in which measures were developed for recording dynamic human interacting. In those studies integrative behavior was defined as "flexible, dynamic, yielding, spontaneous (harmonious behavior); . . . An integrating person seeks and finds common purposes with another; he expends energy with another, not against another." He accepts another, shows respect for the individuality of another; he does not reject another."Dominative behavior on the contrary is rigid, fixed, static. A dominating person has his mind made up, has his goals or desires predetermined. (He is not open to new experience.) H e does not yield to differences; he is not abandoning his status; he is trying to preserve status. H e is not seeking a better understanding of another nor is he trying to achieve a redefining of desires, values or objectives in order to discover a lower common denominator of differences. H e is expending energy against another. H e is not reducing conflict, he is either maintaining or increasing the conflict of differences" (1).Integration represents a participating, stimulating, facilitating, "democratic" process, while domination represents a restricting, conflicting, stifling, usurping, "autocratic" or "dictatorial" relating. Integration also represents an openness to new data, new experience, an "open system" of relating. Domination represents, on the contrary, a "closed system" of relating, an effort to close the life of another to new or different experience.This cross-national study is an investigation in social Creativity: Creativity not as producing originals in painting, sculpture or science, but Creativity as social invention in interpersonal relating.