We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

More than the eye of the beholder : the interplay of person, task, and situation factors in evaluative judgements of creativity.

Birney, D.P. and Beckmann, J.F. and Seah, Y.Z. (2016) 'More than the eye of the beholder : the interplay of person, task, and situation factors in evaluative judgements of creativity.', Learning and individual differences., 51 . pp. 400-408.


Judging creativity accurately is difficult. Individuals who are involved in product creation tend to overestimate the creativity of their work; individuals not involved lack understanding of the creative process that led to the product under scrutiny. We studied creativity judgements in a tripartite person–task–situation framework. Under high, medium, or no structure conditions and different orders of evaluation, participants (N = 90) rated the creativity and purchase appeal of products created by themselves and others. Accuracy was defined as differences from consensus evaluations of participants not involved in production (N = 30). Moderator analyses suggest that externally set structure of the evaluation process (e.g., using a set of criteria) facilitates the quality of creativity judgement. In unstructured conditions, evaluating one's own product before evaluating a peer's leads to low accuracy, but higher levels of conscientiousness seem to mitigate potentially deleterious effects of lack of structure. Higher levels of openness facilitated accurate creativity judgements of peer-produced products, but not self-produced products. A person–task–situation approach is needed to fully unpack the complexity of processes underlying accurate evaluation of creativity.

Item Type:Article
Keywords:Creativity, Judgement, Person–Task–Situation, Evaluation accuracy.
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Learning and Individual Differences. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Learning and Individual Differences, 51, October 2016, 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.007.
Date accepted:14 July 2015
Date deposited:11 August 2015
Date of first online publication:04 August 2015
Date first made open access:04 August 2016

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar