Testing equal odds in creativity research.

Abstract

Simonton's equal odds baseline assumes that the number of creative hits is a positive linear function of the number of attempts (i.e., products). It has importance for productivity of innovators and scientists, small group brainstorming, and divergent thinking research. It has been proposed within a stochastic model for productions in the field of scientific creativity (e.g., publications of scientists). Tests of the equal odds baseline rely commonly on tests of the correlation between quantity and additive quality of output, which has been demonstrated to be inconclusive by Forthmann, Szardenings, and Holling (2018). In contrast, the current work uses a very strict version of equal odds (i.e., assuming constant hit ratios) as a starting point to examine the model at its roots. However, a deviation from such a stricter variant of the equal odds baseline is not only a dichotomous decision. The current work introduces meta-analytical techniques that provide useful statistics to quantify the amount of hit ratio variation attributable to individual differences in the equal odds baseline. This approach further allows to take varying levels of reliability in hit ratio as a function of total output into account. This is illustrated for cross-sectional and longitudinal equal odds with data sets from the fields of productivity of innovators and scientists, small group brainstorming, and divergent thinking research.

On the Conceptual Overlap between the Fluency Contamination Effect in Divergent Thinking Scores and the Chance View on Scientific Creativity

“…As another limitation, it should be acknowledged that deviations from the equal odds baseline as indicated by higher‐order relationships between H and T (see Simonton, 1997) may be undetectable by the approach outlined in this work. This clearly requires future studies in combination with approaches that allow for the study of non‐linear deviations from the equal odds baseline (see also Forthmann et al, 2019).…”

“…Mouchiroud and Lubart (2001) posited that Simonton’s (e.g., 2004) chance view on scientific creativity as it is manifested in the equal odds baseline might be useful to explain strong correlations between divergent thinking fluency and originality. Recent work by Forthmann, Szardenings, and Dumas (2019), and Forthmann, Szardenings, and Holling (2020) highlighted further the strong connection between fluency contamination and the equal odds baseline. For example, Forthmann et al (2020) derived a formula for the expected correlation between fluency and summative originality based on the assumption that average originality and fluency are independent (an assumption that is consistent with the equal odds baseline; Simonton, 2004).…”

“…In addition, individual hit ratios were found to be uncorrelated or negligibly correlated with total output (e.g., Davis, 1987). Finally, the number of high‐quality publications has been found to be correlated with the number of low‐quality publications (e.g., Forthmann et al, 2019).…”

“…Accordingly, Forthmann et al (2019), and Forthmann et al (2020) pointed out that the correlation between T and H / T is sensitive to the differences between the equal odds baseline, dual pathway, and trade‐off model. However, most often the commonly found positive correlation between T and H in divergent thinking or brainstorming research is interpreted as evidence for equal odds without checking the other assumptions (e.g., a zero‐correlation between T and H / T ).…”

“…However, most often the commonly found positive correlation between T and H in divergent thinking or brainstorming research is interpreted as evidence for equal odds without checking the other assumptions (e.g., a zero‐correlation between T and H / T ). There is, however, clear evidence that data with deviations from the equal odds baseline are very likely to yield a positive correlation between T and H (Forthmann et al, 2019; Forthmann et al, 2020; Reinig & Briggs, 2013). Hence, a positive correlation between T and H is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition for the equal odds baseline.…”