PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

407

Title *

Personal factors and group creativity characteristics: A correlational meta-analysisuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Adrien Alejandro Fillon; Fabien Girandola, Nathalie Bonnardel, Jared Kenworthy, Lionel SouchetPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Previous research has investigated the relationship between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. On one side, they indicated that individual differences play a role in group creativity. On the other side, they showed that group creativity activities have different outcomes, leading to numerous ways to assess effectiveness of creative activity. Nonetheless, no meta-analysis was performed on the relationship between the outcomes of the creative activity and personal factors of the group members. In this Registered Report, we conducted a meta-analysis (n = 11, k = 72) on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. We found weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and group creativity outcomes, between r = .04 and r = .67. We found weak support for a moderation effect of time constraint, with a stronger effect between 10 and 20 minutes than less. Finally we found that only a few studies concerning personal factors and creative outcome could be included in the meta-analysis, because they do not directly measure creativity, or they measure other, less common personal factors. We call for a more systematic and direct approach of measuring creativity, and an improvement of open science practices in the field. Data and analysis can be found in: https://osf.io/xwph9/?view_only=335369af22dc425096b1149cea66426a</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

brainstorm, creativity, meta-analysis, personality, correlation

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-02-21 12:41:02

Recommender

Julia M. Rohrer

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY