Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41426411›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Generating, evaluating, endorsing, and implementing malevolent creativity: a malevolent idea journey.

Corinna Perchtold-Stefan, Eric Rietzschel, Matthijs Baas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Corinna Perchtold-StefanDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Eric RietzschelDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Matthijs BaasDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last years, malevolent creativity research has delved into creative ideas that intend to harm both on the smaller and larger scale (from creative bullying or deception to terrorism and warfare) in different settings (personal revenge, organizational level, crime). Here, studies have almost exclusively focused on generating/having malevolently creative ideas, either by having people self-report frequency of such ideas, or by measuring their performance on malevolent creativity tests. However, according to stage-based creativity models, (malevolent) idea generation is only one, arguably less consequential aspect of the creative process. Indeed, having harmful creative ideas does not equate assigning them a high value, endorsing them in others, nor implementing them in real-life, which is what ultimately causes societal damage. In this paper, we first summarize the previous research insights on malevolent idea generation, including links to divergent thinking, personality, emotion, and environmental factors. We then offer novel perspectives and avenues for the future of malevolent creativity research by discussing stages beyond idea generation like idea evaluation and forecasting, as well as the endorsement, selection and implementation of harmful creative ideas. Supporting our theoretical arguments, we also include hitherto unpublished research findings from our labs as a basis for discussion. Overall, this paper is intended as a springboard to discuss ways for approximating the malevolent idea journey toward actual idea implementation in malevolent creativity research, i.e., how people transition from generating malevolent creative ideas to executing malevolent creativity actions in real-life (malevolent innovation).

Indexed as

forecastingidea evaluationidea selectionmalevolent creativitymalevolent innovation

Identifiers

PMID41426411
PMCPMC12712856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.