ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
The Effects of (Dis)similarities Between the Creator and the Assessor on Assessing Creativity: A Comparison of Humans and LLMs.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current research predominantly involves human subjects to evaluate AI creativity. In this explorative study, we questioned the validity of this practice and examined how creator-assessor (dis)similarity-namely to what extent the creator and the assessor were alike-along two dimensions of culture (Western and English-speaking vs. Eastern and Chinese-speaking) and agency (human vs. AI) influences the assessment of creativity. We first asked four types of subjects to create stories, including Eastern participants (university students from China), Eastern AI (Kimi from China), Western participants (university students from The Netherlands), and Western AI (ChatGPT 3.5 from the US). Both Eastern participants and AI created stories in Chinese, which were then translated into English, while both Western participants and AI created stories in English, which were then translated into Chinese. A subset of these stories (2 creative and 2 uncreative per creator type, in total 16 stories) was then randomly selected as assessment materials. Adopting a within-subject design, we then asked new subjects from the same four types (
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.