![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/g7WDhmfinIQf9rjOPG4U5oCptxc=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/74/5d/05/745d0531-4f4d-49b8-a888-8487d595c37d/thumbnail_c739a087-96af-4008-9bbd-6b0b224d6fff.jpg)
What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge’s role in judging creativity. We describe two studies that examined how quasi-experts (people who have more experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compared to novices and experts in rating creative work. In Study One, we compared different types of quasi-experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study Two, we compared experts, quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-experts (regardless of type) seemed to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were mixed for the engineer quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others to properly evaluate creative work.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/roni_reiter-palmon/45/
This work has been peer reviewed buy has not yet been published. © 2013 American Psychological Association