Creativity is more than novelty: Reconsidering replication as a creativity act

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 27-29

  Makel, Matthew C ^a   Plucker, Jonathan A ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Arts; Creativity; Meta analysis; Methodology; Replication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894478312     PISSN: 19313896     EISSN: 1931390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0035811     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Association for Psychological Science. (2013). 2014 submission guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/ publications/journals/psychological_science/ps-submissions
2. Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Toward avoiding an empirical march to nowhere. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 18-20.
3. Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68, 801-813
4. Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 49, 609-610.
5. Fanelli, D. (2010). "Positive" results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5, e10068.
6. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891-904.
7. Furchtgott, E. (1984). Replicate, again, and again. American Psychologist, 39, 1315-1316.
8. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.
9. John, L. K., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524-532.
10. Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., Magalhães de Saldanha da Gama, P. A., Miller, S., Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 572-584.
11. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M. J., Nosek, B. A. (2013). Investigating variation in replicability: The "many labs" replication project. Retrieved from https:// osf.io/wx7ck/files/ManyLabsManuscript.pdf/. Retrieved from http://osf.io/project/WX7Ck/
12. Ma, H. H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435-446.
13. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537-542.
15. Makel, M. C. (2014). The empirical march: Making science better at selfcorrection. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 2-7.
16. McBee, M. T., & Matthews, M. S. (2014). Change starts with journal editors: In response to Makel (2014). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 8-10.
17. Pigott, T. D., Valentine, J. C., Polanin, J. R., & Williams, R. T. (2013). Outcome-reporting bias in education research. Educational Researcher, 42, 424-432.
18. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96.
19. Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (in press). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children.
20. Reiter-Palmon, R., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2014). Pipeline revisions: A call to change. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 13-14.
21. Russ, S. W. (2014). Demonstrating effects with children: When do we know we know? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 24-26.
22. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
23. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97-106.
24. Simonton, D. K. (2014). Significant samples-not significance tests! The often overlooked solution to the replication problem. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 11-12.
25. Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2014). Replicability? Not that again! Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 21-23.
26. Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance - or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30-34.
27. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83-100.
28. Vartanian, O. (2014). Toward a cumulative psychological science of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 15-17.