Tell Me Your Name and I'll Tell You How Creative Your Work Is: Author's Name and Gender as Factors Influencing Assessment of Products' Creativity in Four Different Domains

Abstract

The main goal of this study was to examine the effects of authors' name and gender on judges' assessment of product creativity in 4 different domains (art, science, music, and poetry). A total of 119 participants divided into 5 groups assessed products signed with a fictional author's name (unique vs. typical, male vs. female) or in an anonymous condition. It was observed that depending on the domain, the uniqueness of the author's name and her or his gender was associated with the assessment of creativity of the product. A poem and painting signed with an unusual name and a piece of music whose authorship was attributed to a man with a unique name were assessed as especially creative. In case of scientific theory, works attributed to men were assessed as significantly more creative than those of women. The results are discussed in light of the attributional approach to creativity.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [University College London]
On: 28 February 2013, At: 03:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Creativity Research Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20
Tell Me Your Name and I'll Tell You How Creative
Your Work Is: Author's Name and Gender as Factors
Influencing Assessment of Products' Creativity in Four
Different Domains
Izabela Lebuda
a
& Maciej Karwowski
a
a
Academy of Special Education
Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Izabela Lebuda & Maciej Karwowski (2013): Tell Me Your Name and I'll Tell You How Creative Your Work
Is: Author's Name and Gender as Factors Influencing Assessment of Products' Creativity in Four Different Domains, Creativity
Research Journal, 25:1, 137-142
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752297
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

RESEARCH NOTE
Tell Me Your Name and I’ll Tell You How Creative Your
Work Is: Author’s Name and Gender as Factors Influencing
Assessment of Products’ Creativity in Four Different Domains
Izabela Lebuda and Maciej Karwowski
Academy of Special Education
The main goal of this study was to examine the effects of authors’ name and gender on
judges’ assessment of product creativity in 4 different domains (art, science, music, and
poetry). A total of 119 participants divided into 5 groups assessed products signed with
a fictional author’s name (unique vs. typical, male vs. female) or in an anonymous con-
dition. It was observed that depending on the domain, the uniqueness of the author’s
name and her or his gender was associated with the assessment of creativity of the pro-
duct. A poem and painting signed with an unusual name and a piece of music whose
authorship was attributed to a man with a unique name were assessed as especially cre-
ative. In case of scientific theory, works attributed to men were assessed as significantly
more creative than those of women. The results are discussed in light of the attributional
approach to creativity.
Creativity is usually analyzed according to the four-P
perspective: person, process, environmental conditio ns,
and product (Rhodes, 1961). To be considered creative,
a product needs to fulfill conditions of novelty (orig-
inality) and usefulness (value; Kasof, 1995). These cri-
teria, however, raise numerous problems. Novelty is a
relative criterion, demanding a point of reference. Use-
fulness is also not an absolute feature, as ‘‘creativity is
a process leading to a new product which is accepted
as useful or acceptable by a certain group in a given
time’’ (Stein, 1953, p. 322). The assumption that a product
does not have an absolute value and that its assessment is
dependent on contextual conditions is characteristic of
the attributional approach to creativity (Kasof, 1995),
according to which creativity is a characteristic attribu-
ted to certain products, often as a result of more or less
systematic biases. From such a viewpoint, creativity is a
form of persuasive message whose source is the author,
whose product is the content, and whose recipients are
judges or people for whom the product was created
(Kasof, 1995, p. 459). Although experts’ reliability in
assessing creativity has been demonstrated many times
(Amabile, 1982), a growing number of studies seek
to have creativity evaluated by laypeople or novices
(Kaufman, Baer, Agars, & Loomis, 2010).
The image of the author may have an influence on
the assessment of her or his product. It has been
demonstrated (Peters & Ceci, 1982) that established
authors’ papers were more likely to be rejected when sub-
mitted as anonymous than when signed. Names provide
knowledge about the author’s gender (Erwin, 2006), age
(Dunkling, 1986) and social group or ethnicity (Kasof,
1993). Names or pseudonyms also correspond to a num-
ber of less obvious characteristics, such as expected level
of intelligence, creative accomplishments (i.e., listing in
Who’s Who), and knowledge (Zweigenhaft, 1977).
It has been demonstrated that essays signed with
attractive names are rated higher than those signed with
unattractive names (Erwin & Calev, 1984). In general,
popular, frequently used names with conventional spel-
lings are perceived more positively and positive trai ts are
This research was supported by a grant from Academy of Special
Education (MSTM 2=11).
Correspondence should be sent to Izabela Lebuda, Department of
Educational Sciences, Academy of Special Education, Szczesliwicka
St., 40, 02-353 Warsaw, Poland. E-mail: izalebuda@gmail.com
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 25(1), 137–142, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752297
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013

attributed to the people bearing them (Busse &
Seraydarian, 1979; Harari & McDavid, 1973; Leirer,
Hamilton, & Carpenter, 1982; Mehrabian & Piercy,
1992a), such as greater physical and social attractiveness
(Buchanan & Bruning, 1971), greater intellectual abili-
ties and academic achievements (Nelson, 1977), and
higher creativity (Zweigenhaft, 1977). Conventional
names communicate such traits as prosperity, morality,
popularity, warmth, serenity, and manliness (Levine &
Willis, 1994; Mehrabian & Piercy, 1992b). The per-
ception of people with unique or common names trans-
lates into the assessment of their work. Harari and
McDavid (1973) reported that teachers evaluated essays
written by students with popular names more highly
than those by students with unique names. The positive
perception of popular names, the people bearing them,
and their works is related to the ‘‘mere exposure’’ effect
(Zajonc, 1968, p. 1). There are, however, also studies
that indicate a positive relationship between unusual
names and academic performance (Erwin 1995, 1999)
or achievements in the given field (Sadowski, Wheeler,
& Cash, 1983). It may be hypothesized that an unusual
name does not always lead to rejection; it can often
highlight the author’s individuality (Zweigenhaft, 1977,
1981) and, by its distinctiveness, shape a desirable
image and bring a positive impact to bear on the
assessment of product creativity (Kasof, 1995). Taking
this into account, the first hypothesis was formulated
as follows:
H1. Products authored by people with unique names are
perceived as more creative than products authored
by people with typical names.
In the context of evaluating work through the prism of
the author’s name, it is important to take into
consideration the creative domain that it represents.
Creative products in different domains (e.g., science vs.
art) are perceived differently and evoke different reac-
tions among recipients (e.g., Baer, 1998; Kaufman &
Baer, 2005; Reiter-Palmon, Illies, Cross, Buboltz, &
Nimps, 2009). Domains of creativity differ in their level
of formalization, taking different places on the scale
from blind to structured domains, with academic and
classical works being more structured and expressive
and avant-garde, romantic domains being more blind
(Simonton, 1997). Usually, in studies into the de termi-
nants of product pe rception, verbal material is used in
the form of essays, articles, or poems (Koppel,
Argamon, & Shimoni, 2002). There is a lack of infor-
mation regarding the way in which a name’s uniqueness
is associated with the reception of nonverbal works.
Therefore, it was important to examine whether the
uniqueness of the author’s name was related to the
assessment of a poem, musical composition, scientific
theory, or painting. Hence, the second hypothesis is:
H2. Uniqueness of names is positively associated with
assessment of creativity in fields characterized by
lesser structuralization, such as poetry and visual
works, whereas in the cases of science and music,
works of people with conventional names are rated
higher.
Name communicates a lot of things. A look at pro-
duct assessment through name will always highlight
connections with the connotations of the name, the gen-
der stereotypes it induces (Mehrabian & Valdez, 1990),
and racial biases (Kaufman, Baer, et al., 2010;
Kaufman, Baer, & Gentile, 2004). The frequency of a
name’s occurrence seems to be of greater importance
in relation to women than to men (Busse & Seraydarian,
1978), but it also interacts with the domain in question.
When essays signed with a female or male name were
assessed, women were rated lower if the article
was devoted to a typically male domain (law) or a
gender-neutral subject matter (linguistics; Goldberg,
1968). Thus, the expecte d effect may be moderated by
a single specific domain of creativity. Numerous studies
have shown that, to a large extent, whether works of
women or of men are preferred will depend on the field
in which the author is operating (Etaugh & Rose, 1975;
Issacs, 1981; Lenney, Mitchell, & Browning, 1983)—
although contemporary studies (Kaufman et al., 2004)
and meta-analyses have not found unequivocal results
in this matter (Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers,
1989; Top, 1991). Only in studies into verbal creativity
(especially poetry) was a tendency found to prefer the
works of women over those of men (Kaufman, Baer
et al., 2010; Kaufman, Niu, Sexton, & Cole, 2010).
Therefore, the third hypothesis is:
H3. A work of poetry of female authorship shall be
rated as more creative than a poem written by a
man. In cases of scientific theory, higher results
shall be attributed to men. No gender differences
are expected in cases of music and painting.
No specific hypotheses on gender  name uniqueness 
domain interaction on assessment of prod uct creativity
were inferred from existing literature, so possible inter-
active effects were treated as exploratory.
In previous works, the problem of assessing a product
created by individuals from the same or strange group
(i.e., the same or opposite sex) features prominently
(Brown, Schmidt, & Collins, 1988). The results to date
do not lead to any clear-cut conclusions—it has been
indicated that women are harsher critics of male work
(Buchanan & Bruning, 1971); that they prefer works
138
LEBUDA AND KARWOWSKI
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013

by individuals of the same gender (Top, 1991), or
that they are particularly harsh toward such works
(Goldberg, 1989). Other studies have shown a lack of
relation (Mehrabian & Valdez, 1990). Hence, the last
hypothesis is:
H4. Women shall consider works of female authorship
as more creative. In case of men, works of male
authorship will be perceived as more creative.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 154 people took part in the first stage of the
study: 67% women (N ¼ 103) and 33% men (N ¼ 51).
All were over 18 years of age, and were studying or
had completed higher education. In the second stage, a
panel of four judges, composed of graduate students
who had taken several creativity courses (three
women—a copywriter, a painter, and a musician, and
one man—a graphic designer and photographer; all
work as lecturers within the same university), served as
experts performing a consensual assessment of 40
works—10 each in four fields (science, poetry, music,
art) with a high agreem ent (Kendall’s W ¼ .87). Based
on average scores, one work from every domain was
selected (neither very creative, nor noncreative). In the
third, main stage, 119 people who had not taken part
in the previous stages participated. Of them 71% were
women (N ¼ 84) and 29% were men (N ¼ 35). The age
of the participants ranged between 20 and 65
(M ¼ 28.2; SD ¼ 9.0). All were either studying or had
completed higher education.
Materials
Stimulus material from four domains was selected:
verbal work—a poem (an excerpt describing the author’s
emotions: ‘‘Shadows, reflecting the golden strings,
pulled by a gray wall, br eak down my peace, but I
want it’’); visual work—an abstract painting depicting
a colorful composition of geometric figures; music—part
of an instrumental piece (author: Sigur Ro
´
s; title of
song: Salk; part from 0:00 to 0:36); and a scientific
work—a model for a concept from the field of humani-
ties (considerations in defining the term success). The
perceived level of the products’ creativity was measured
with the 7-point Likert scales, where 1 ¼ not creative
and 7 ¼ very creative. The participants were not pro-
vided with a definition of creativity and had to rely on
their implicit theories of creativity (Runco & Bachleda,
1986).
Procedure
The study was co nducted in three stages—two initial
and one proper. In the first stage, authors’ names were
selected. From a list of 30 female and 30 male names,
participants selected five that, in their opinion, were
the most common or the most unusual. From these
names, those most frequently chosen were selected,
taking into consideration the number of syllables so that
in each name the number was equal (Mehrabian &
Piercy, 1993). The following names were selected:
Anna—female, popular (144 selections of 154); Lea—
female, unique (154 of 154); Pawel—male, popular
(152 of 154) and Eliasz—male, unique (153 of 154).
At the second stage, the judges ranked 10 products
within each domain (visual arts, music, scientific the-
ories, and poetry), applying the consensual assessment
method (Amabile, 1982).
In the third stage, an e-mail asking the participants to
take part in the study was sent. Works signed appropri-
ately were attached to each e-mail and a link to a Web
page that allowed scoring of the work was supplied.
The e-mail was sent out in five versions; works in the
control group were not assigned a name. Completion
of the whole survey took be tween 3 and 10 min. Partici-
pation in the study was voluntary and participants were
not rewarded for participation.
RESULTS
As expected, products were assessed as moderately cre-
ative in general (on average 4–5 on a 7-point scale);
however participants considered the poem to be the
most creat ive, whereas the sketch of the scientific theory
was perceived as least creative. The difference between
painting and theory was statistically significant;
t(df ¼ 118) ¼ 3.39; p ¼ .001, d ¼ .31 95% CI: .13–.49); as
were the diff erences between music and theory;
t(df ¼ 118) ¼ 4.51; p < .0001, d ¼ .41, 95% CI: .23–.60;
and poem and theory; t(df ¼ 118) ¼ 6.44; p < .0001,
d ¼ .59, 95% CI: .40–.78. Painting and music were
assessed similarly; t(df ¼ 118) ¼.05, ns; as were paint-
ing and poem t(df ¼ 118) ¼ 1.62; p ¼ .11, d ¼ .15, 95%
CI: .03–.33; and music and poem; t( df ¼ 118) ¼ 1.81;
p ¼ .07, d ¼ .17, 95% CI: .02–.35.
The correlations between evaluated creativity of
works from different domains were statistically signifi-
cant, positive, and of a moderate effect size (Table 1).
The strength of the relationship between theory and
painting (r ¼ .18) was reliably lower than associations
of evaluated theory with music (r ¼ .47, z ¼2.49;
p ¼ .006) and poetry (r ¼ .45, z ¼2.30, p ¼ .01). To
examine whether works of people with unique
names are attributed a higher level of creativity, as
NAME AND CREATIVITY
139
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013

hypothesized, assessments of products from all four
domains were averaged (reliability for such constructed
four-item scale was acceptable, a ¼ .67) and analyzed by
a one-factor ANOVA. No statistically significant
differences were found; F(2,116) ¼ .02; p ¼ .98; hence
the first hypothesis is refuted. However, separate analy-
ses in each domain showed statistically significant main
effects of name uniqueness in the case of the music
domain; F(1,114) ¼ 15.17, p ¼ .0001; g
2
¼ .12; and the
poem; F(1,114) ¼ 21.07; p ¼ .0001; g
2
¼ .16. In both
cases, products signed with an unique name were per-
ceived as more creative than those signed with typical
names: music (M ¼ 5.33, SD ¼ 1.39 and M ¼ 4.11,
SD ¼ 1.58, respectively); anon ymous group (M ¼ 4.63,
SD ¼ 1.97; only differences between unique and typical
names were statistically significant when Sidak test was
applied); poem unique (M ¼ 5.78, SD ¼ 1.33); typical
(M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 1.69); anonymous (M ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 1.43;
only typical vs. unique name groups reliably differed). It
is worth noting the medium-to-high effect size (Cohen,
1988), showing that products signed with a unique name
were perceived as much more creative than those of
authors with typical names. No reliable main effects of
name uniqueness were found with regard to evaluation
of the painting; F(1,114) ¼ 1.23; p ¼ .27; or scientific
theory; F(1,114) ¼ .47; p ¼ .50. Although the result con-
firms the second hypothesis in the case of the poem, in
the case of the music the finding was contrary to expec-
tations—work signed with a unique name was rated as
more creative.
The main effect of authors’ gender was found when
the averaged score of all works was used as a dependent
variable; F(2,116) ¼ 5.00; p ¼ .008; g
2
¼ .08. Works
signed with a male na me were rated higher than those
of females (M ¼ 4.99, SD ¼ .96 and M ¼ 4.23,
SD ¼ 1.32 respectively). Differences were also observed
in the case of the scientific theory; F(2,116) ¼ 18.60;
p ¼ .001; g
2
¼ .24; with large effect size. When signed
with a female name the theory was rated lower not only
in comparison with works created by a male author, but
also when compared to an anonymous work. In the
cases of the painting and the poem, gender differences
were not statistically significant (Fs < 1); in the case of
music there was a tendency to assess work more
highly when it was signed with a man’s name;
F(2,116) ¼ 2.03; p ¼ .14; Table 2).
Unexpectedly, statistically significant interaction
gender  name uniqueness was observed in the case of
the pa inting; F(1,114) ¼ 22.24; p < .0001; g
2
¼ .16; with
medium-to-large effect size. Paintings signed with
unique women’s names were assessed as more creative
than those signed with typical names. The revers e was
observed in the case of men (Table 2).
Planned comparisons with Sidak correction for mul-
tiple comparisons showed that in the case of the scien-
tific theory, works signed by a man both with a unique
and with a typical name were rated significantly higher
than works by women signed both with a unique name
and with a typical name. Furthermore, a work signed
with a popular female name was rated lower than the
control group. The piece of music signed with a unique
male name was considered more creative than works
signed by women wi th popular and unique names and
by a popular male name. A poem signed with a unique
female name was rated higher than a poem by a male or
a female with a popular name (coherently with H3).
Poetry signed with a popular male name scored lower
than cases in which a unique male name was provided
for the author.
To check whether there were differences in ratings of
works depending on the judges’ gender (hypothesis 4), a
series of non-parametric U Mann–Whitney tests were
TABLE 2
Perceived Creativity of Products as Depending on Uniqueness of Author’s Name and Gender
Painting Theory Music Poem
Name M SD M SD M SD M SD
Popular female 3.78a 1.73 2.81a 1.20 3.96a 1.64 4.61a 1.12
Unique female 5.83b 1.37 3.35a 1.61 4.81a 1.52 5.87b 1.06
Popular male 5.30b 1.74 4.91b 1.38 4.26a 1.54 4.12a 2.05
Unique male 4.04a 2.07 4.78b 1.54 5.91b 0.95 5.70b 1.58
Anonymous (Control group) 4.67ab 1.49 4.33b 1.55 4.63ab 1.97 4.96ab 1.43
Note. Means with different subscripts differ at p < .05 or higher (comparison is within columns with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons).
TABLE 1
Descriptives Statistics and Intercorrelations Between
Study Variables
M SD Painting Theory Music Poem
Painting 4.71 1.84 1 .18

.33

.24

Theory 4.01 1.66 1 .47

.45

Music 4.7 1.67 1 .36

Poem 5.03 1.62 1

p < .05.

p < .01.
140 LEBUDA AND KARWOWSKI
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013

conducted due to large discrepancies between the num-
ber of men and women in the study. No differences
showing a tendency to prefer works from one’s own gen-
der group or otherwise were discovered, so the fourth
hypothesis is refuted. However, it is worth mentioning
that the paintings (woman M ¼ 27.64, man M ¼ 15.86;
U ¼ 108.50; p ¼ .014) signed with unique names were
rated higher by women, which in part confirms the
fourth hypothesis.
DISCUSSION
The name is not the only key (if, indeed, it is key at all)
issue in judging creativity (Sternberg, 1995); however, as
was demonstrated, in a situation where there is limited
information it influ ences the assessment of the work.
This study contributed to the knowledge about product
reception, showing that the perceived author’s name and
gender influence the assessment of a product in four dif-
ferent domains. A unique name induced a more positive
perception of musical and poetic works, which in the
case of music was inconsistent with expectations (see
also Runco & Bachleda, 1986). Generally, works signed
by men scored higher and were perceived as more cre-
ative. Works signed with a female name were especially
depreciated in the case of scientific theory, where works
signed by women scored even lower than anonymous
works. The relationship between gender and name
uniqueness—which altered the product’s a ssessment in
four analyzed domains—seems to be of special impor-
tance and interest. The highest creativi ty was attributed
to the painting signed with a unique female name; the
lowest to that of a female with a common name. The
reverse was observed in the case of men. This interactive
effect needs further research, as there is no theory-driven
explanation. In the case of scientific theory, works
signed with male names, regardless of their frequency
of occurrence, scored higher than works attributed to
women. Work signed by a woman with a popular na me
scored lowest. What is more, the score here was signifi-
cantly lower than in the control group. In the case of
music, work attributed to a man with a unique name
was clearly rated highest. In turn, in the case of poems,
compositions signed with a unique female name were
most appreciated and those signed with a popular male
name scored lowest. Women rated pa intings and musi-
cal pieces more highly when they were signed with
unique names.
Product assessment in this study was substantially
domain-dependent. Science is still perceived as a typi-
cally male domain (Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009)
and works by women, particularly those bearing popu-
lar names, were discriminated against. In literary and
artistic creativity, works of women with unusual names
are favored; this may be a result of the general percep-
tion of these domains as much more feminine and
stereotypically related to emotions and self-expr ession
(Charyton & Snelbecker, 2007). In music, contrary to
our expectations, the highest scores were attributed to
works signed with unusual male names. It may be
speculated that this may stem from the image of the
modern musician (Vuust, Gebauer, & Hansen, 2010),
which significantly differs from the image of the classic
virtuoso. All three artistic domains highlighted the con-
viction that the most unusual works are created by
authors with distinctive names (Kasof, 1993, 1995;
Zweigenhaft, 1977). The unusualness of the artist
stressed in the form of the name, in accordance with
the halo effect, influences the increased perception of
the work’s creativity level.
This study reveals differences in perceiving and asses-
sing works depending on the domain of creativity. As a
part of further investigation it is worth extending the
analyses looking into how the bias in product assess-
ment is interconnected with variations in rating the
value of the work (Ward, 1979). An interesting task
would be to investigate how a name influences product
originality in other domains (Kaufman & Baer, 2005).
The obvious limitation of this study lies in its rela-
tively small sample and uneven gender distribution.
There was also insufficient control over variables such
as the uniqueness of judges’ names and their psychologi-
cal characteristics—especially those influencing the dis-
cernment of creativity (Grohman, Wodniecka, &
Klusak, 2006; Silvia, 2008). It seems justifiable to take
into consideration in further work a greater number of
variables characterizing people’s judgments and control
of the role of personality, creative abilities and the
judges’ names. The na mes of the people who provide
assessment can alter results to a significant degree, for
example through membership in the same group (Brown
et al., 1988). In turn, in the case of names assigned to
works, in addition to their frequency of occurrence it
is worth seeking more thorough verification of the
stereotypes attached to them and considering the
perceived attractiveness, age and abiliti es of the author,
among other things (Kasof, 1993).
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual
assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 997–1013.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 2, 173–177.
Brown, J., Schmidt, G., & Collins, R. (1988). Personal involvement
and the evaluation of group products. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18, 177–179.
NAME AND CREATIVITY
141
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013

Buchanan, B. A., & Bruning, J. L. (1971). Connotative meaning of first
name and nicknames on three dimensions. Journal of Social
Psychology, 85, 143–144.
Busse, T. V., & Seraydarian, L. (1979). First name and popularity on
grade school children. Psychology in the School, 16, 149–153.
Busse, T. V., & Seraydarian, L. (1978). The relationship between first
name desirability and school readiness, IQ and school achievement.
Psychology in the School, 15, 279–302.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s under-
representation in science: Sociocultural and biological considera-
tions. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). Engineers’ and musicians’
choices of self-descriptive adjectives as potential indicators of crea-
tivity by gender and domain. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 1, 91–99.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dunkling, L. A. (1986). The Guinness book of names. Middlesex,
England: Guinness Superlatives.
Erwin, P. G. (1995). The origins and effect of personal name stereo-
types. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 20, 41–52.
Erwin, P. G. (1999). Attractiveness of first names and academic
achievement. Journal of Psychology, 133, 617–620.
Erwin, P. G. (2006). Children’s evaluative stereotypes of masculine,
feminine, and androgynous first names. Psychological Record, 56,
513–519.
Erwin, P. G., & Calev, A. (1984). The influence of Christian name
stereotypes on the marking of children’s essays. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 54, 223–227.
Etaugh, C., & Rose, S. (1975). Adolescents’ sex bias in the evaluation
of performance. Developmental Psychology, 11, 663–664.
Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women?
Trans-Action: Social Science and Modern Society, 5, 28–30.
Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z., & Klusak, M. (2006). Divergent think-
ing and evaluation skills. Do they always go together? Journal of
Creative Behavior, 40, 125–145.
Harari, H., & McDavid, J. W. (1973). Name stereotypes and teacher
expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 222–225.
Isaacs, M. B. (1981). Sex role stereotyping and the evaluation of the
performance of women changing trends. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 6, 187–195.
Kasof, J. (1993). Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 113, 140–163.
Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective.
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 311–366.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (Ed.). (2005). Creativity across domains:
faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, B., Agars, M. D., & Loomis, D. (2010). Creativ-
ity stereotypes and the consensual assessment technique. Creativity
Research Journal, 22, 200–205.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Differences in gender
and ethnicity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 38, 56–69.
Kaufman, J. C., Niu, W., Sexton, J. D., & Cole, J. C. (2010). In the eye
of the beholder: Differences across ethnicity and gender in evaluating
creative work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 496–511.
Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Shimoni, A. R. (2002). Automatically
categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic
Computing, 17, 401–412.
Leirer, V. Q., Hamilton, D. L., & Carpenter, S. (1982). Common first
names as cues for inferences about personality. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 712–718.
Lenney, E., Mitchell, L., & Browning, C. (1983). The effect of clear
evaluation criteria on sex bias in judgments of performance.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 313–328.
Levine, M. B., & Willis, F. N. (1994). Public reaction for unsusual
names. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 561–568.
Mehrabian, A., & Piercy, M. (1992a). Differences in positive and nega-
tive connotations of nicknames and gives names. Journal of Social
Psychology, 133, 337–339.
Mehrabian, A., & Piercy, M. (1992b). Positive and negative connota-
tions of unconventionally and conventionally spelled names. Journal
of Social Psychology, 133, 445–451.
Mehrabian, A., & Piercy, M. (1993). Affective and personality charac-
teristics inferred form length of first names. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 755–758.
Mehrabian, A., & Valdez, P. (1990). Basic name connotations and
related sex stereotyping. Psychological Reports, 66, 1309–1310.
Nelson, S. D. (1977). First-name stereotypes and expected academic
achievement of students. Psychological Reports, 41, 1343–1344.
Peters, D., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). A naturalistic study of the peer review
process in psychology: The fate of published articles, resubmitted.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 4–17.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, M. Y., Cross, L. K., Buboltz, C., & Nimps,
T. (2009). Creativity and domain specificity: the effect of task type
on multiple indexes of creative problem-solving. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 73–80.
Rhodes, M. (1961). Analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42,
305–310.
Runco, M. A., & Bachleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic,
scientific and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20,
93–98.
Sadowski, C. J., Wheeler, K. J., & Cash, M. (1983). Unusual first
names and achievement among male psychologists. Journal of Social
Psychology, 119, 181–185.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: how well can people
identify their most creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativ-
ity, and the Arts, 2, 139–146.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and
explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychologi-
cal Review, 104, 66–89.
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36,
311–322.
Sternberg, R. J. (1995). If you change your name to Mark Twain,
will you be judged as creative? Creativity Research Journal, 8,
367–370.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. (1989). Joan
McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evalua-
tions? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409–429.
Top, T. J. (1991). Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the
scientific, artistic, and literary professions: A review. Sex Roles,
24, 73–106.
Vuust, P., Gebauer, L., & Hansen, N. C. (2010). Personality influences
career choice: Sensation seeking in professional musicians. Music
Education Research, 12, 219–230.
Ward, C. (1979). Different evaluations of male and female expertise:
Prejudice against women? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology, 18, 65–69.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1977). The other side of unusual fist name. Journal
of Social Psychology, 103, 291–301.
Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1981). Unusual names and uniqueness. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 297–298.
142 LEBUDA AND KARWOWSKI
Downloaded by [University College London] at 03:41 28 February 2013