This article compares the conceptualisations of creativity between the early childhood policy frameworks from Iran and Australia to demonstrate how cultural differences influence understandings and representations of creativity. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2019. “PISA 2021 Creative Thinking Framework: Third Draft.” OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf. suggests that students in all contexts and across all levels of education need to learn how to engage productively in the practice of generating ideas, reflecting upon ideas valuing both relevance and novelty, and how to iterate their ideas to a satisfactory outcome. This research draws from Hofsted, G. 2020. “Hofsted Insights.” https:// www.hofstede-insights.com/ and Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. three dimensions of national cultures for interpreting the cultural differences between Australia and Iran, as well as Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood.” In In the Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, edited by R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Plenum Press socio-cultural theory. This study analyses how creativity is represented within the policy documentation drawing from four perspectives (psychology, education, sociocultural and art). Findings suggest similarities for how creativity was conceptualised, however, significant differences were found pertaining to culture. These results assist in understanding how global influences on early childhood education policies regarding creativity can be interpreted and implemented in response to different culturally- situated contexts. A significant implication of this study is its call for policy makers and teachers to factor in cultural differences in developing children’s creativity.