ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
"Robust" but Tiny: Methodological Influences and Inter-Individual (Un)Stability of the Serial Order Effect in Creativity.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The serial order effect (SOE), i.e., the tendency for the creative quality of ideas to increase with increasing response position, has been widely documented in divergent thinking (DT) research. However, its magnitude is hardly reported, and its sensitivity to methodological effects (e.g., DT task used, scoring method) has rarely been investigated. More critically, the stability of inter-individual differences in SOE has not been investigated to date. Is the SOE a sizable, dependable (i.e., immune to methodological variations), and importantly, a trait-like psychological phenomenon? This study examined SOE strength and inter-individual consistency across three Alternate Uses Task (AUT) prompts and three scoring approaches: subjective ratings, frequency-based scoring, and semantic similarity. While the SOE emerged across all scoring methods and functional forms examined (linear and quadratic), effect sizes were consistently small in magnitude (explaining at most 3.5% of variance) and varied significantly by stimulus and scoring method. Crucially, evidence for stable individual differences in SOE slopes was absent (ICCs < 0.31 across AUT prompts), raising a potential "reliability paradox": the SOE appears robust at the group level (i.e., reproducible, though small), yet unreliable in terms of inter-individual stability. These findings underscore the need for systematic evaluation of SOE effect sizes, greater attention to task and scoring differences, and closer investigations clarifying whether the SOE reflects a stable trait interpretable at the individual level, or an aggregate phenomenon with limited practical significance.
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.