ArticleScientific reports2024
The effect of expertise on the creation and evaluation of visual compositions in terms of creativity and beauty.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-pathway processing of AI-generated Chinese ink painting: evidence from eye-tracking, EEG, and artistic expertise.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Preference for symmetry, balance, or proximity in picture aesthetics depends on the method of evaluation.i-PerceptionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of artistically creative individuals is an important matter in the fields of art, design, and psychology. One promising approach involves assessing a person's products rather than his or her personality or cognitive processes. However, the necessity of expert involvement in such evaluations is still debated. To investigate this issue, two experiments were conducted, each consisting of a production phase and an evaluation phase. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to compose a most beautiful picture, which was subsequently assessed in terms of beauty. Experiment 2 was analogous, but participants were asked to compose a most creative picture, which was then assessed in terms of creativity and beauty. The results revealed that expertise did not play a crucial role in the creation or evaluation of beauty. Both experts and non-experts largely agreed on what constitutes beauty. However, when it came to the production and assessment of creative pictures, experts had an advantage. They were the only group that was able to predict a person's creativity based on the evaluation of his or her product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.