Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? | Zendy

James C. Kaufman | Zendy; John Baer | Zendy; David H. Cropley | Zendy; Roni ReiterPalmon | Zendy; Sarah E. Sinnett | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?

Author(s) -

James C. Kaufman,

John Baer,

David H. Cropley,

Roni ReiterPalmon,

Sarah E. Sinnett

Publication year - 2013

Publication title -

psychology of aesthetics creativity and the arts

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 1.279

H-Index - 51

eISSN - 1931-390X

pISSN - 1931-3896

DOI - 10.1037/a0034809

Subject(s) - work (physics) , psychology , creative work , engineering ethics , knowledge management , management science , computer science , engineering , political science , mechanical engineering , law

What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge’s role in judging creativity. We describe two studies that examined how “quasi-experts” (people who have more experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compared with novices and experts in rating creative work. In Study 1, we compared different types of quasi-experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study 2, we compared experts, quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-experts (regardless of type) seemed to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were mixed for the engineer quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others to properly evaluate creative work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research