Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis

Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904" }, "headline": "Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis", "datePublished": "2024-08-07T11:46:38", "dateModified": "2024-08-07T11:46:38", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Adrien A. Fillon" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fabien Girandola" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nathalie Bonnardel" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jared B. Kenworthy" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Lionel Souchet" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Previous research has indicated that individual differences play a role in group creativity. Group creativity activities have different outcomes, leading to numerous ways to assess the effectiveness of these creative activities. To date, no meta-analysis has been performed on the relationship between the outcomes of the creative activity and personal factors of the group members. In this Registered Report, we conducted a meta-analysis (n = 11, k = 72) on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. We found weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and group creativity outcomes, between r = .04 and r = .67. We found weak support for a moderation effect of time constraint, with stronger relationships for conditions limited to 20 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes. Finally, we found that only a few studies could be included in the meta-analysis, because many studies (1) did not directly measure creativity, or (2) measured other, less common personal factors. We call for a more systematic and direct approach to measuring creativity and an improvement of open science practices in the field. Data and analysis can be found at https://osf.io/xwph9." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1", "name": "Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes:..." } } ] } Home Browse Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Fillon AA, Girandola F, Bonnardel N et al. Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] Adrien A. Fillon 1 , Fabien Girandola 2 , Nathalie Bonnardel 3 , Jared B. Kenworthy 4 , Lionel Souchet 2 Adrien A. Fillon 1 , Fabien Girandola 2 , [...] Nathalie Bonnardel 3 , Jared B. Kenworthy 4 , Lionel Souchet 2 PUBLISHED 07 Aug 2024 Author details Author details 1 ERA chair of science and innovation Policy & Studies, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 6015, Cyprus 2 Department of Social Psychology, Aix-marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France 3 Department of Cognitive Psychology, Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France 4 Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA Adrien A. Fillon Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fabien Girandola Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nathalie Bonnardel Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Jared B. Kenworthy Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Lionel Souchet Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Social Psychology gateway. Abstract Previous research has indicated that individual differences play a role in group creativity. Group creativity activities have different outcomes, leading to numerous ways to assess the effectiveness of these creative activities. To date, no meta-analysis has been performed on the relationship between the outcomes of the creative activity and personal factors of the group members. In this Registered Report, we conducted a meta-analysis ( n = 11, k = 72) on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. We found weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and group creativity outcomes, between r = .04 and r = .67. We found weak support for a moderation effect of time constraint, with stronger relationships for conditions limited to 20 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes. Finally, we found that only a few studies could be included in the meta-analysis, because many studies (1) did not directly measure creativity, or (2) measured other, less common personal factors. We call for a more systematic and direct approach to measuring creativity and an improvement of open science practices in the field. Data and analysis can be found at https://osf.io/xwph9. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords brainstorm, creativity, meta-analysis, personality, correlation Corresponding Author(s) Adrien A. Fillon ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Adrien A. Fillon Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and innovation Programme under Grant Agreement number: 857636 — SInnoPSis — H2020-WIDESPREAD-2018-2020/H2020-WIDESPREAD-2018-04. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Fillon AA et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Fillon AA, Girandola F, Bonnardel N et al. Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 ) First published: 07 Aug 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 ) Latest published: 07 Aug 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 ) Personal factors Extensive research has been conducted on personal factors influencing individual creativity, but less research has been done on people in social contexts ( Reiter-Palmon & Kaufman, 2018 ). Creativity was first investigated as an individual process, and teamwork was considered as a facilitator or inhibitor of individual creativity ( Amabile, 1996 ; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012 ). Today, team creativity is central to product design and development, and to the solution of challenging problems. Understanding how each member of the creative group can have a different impact on the outcome of creative thinking is crucial since it can contribute to improving the process and customizing the creative activity for the participants. For a long time, the empirical literature examining creativity activities mostly associated personal factors with personality traits ( Barron & Harrington, 1981 ; McCrae & Costa, 1995 ; Puryear et al., 2017 ; Yao & Li, 2021 ). Recently, researchers have started examining the effects of emotional disposition and cognitive differences to get a broader comprehension of individual differences and their contribution to group creative outcomes. Relationships between personal factors and group creativity outcomes There is a growing interest in the link between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. Many existing studies have been conducted regarding the personal factors involved in fluency and flexibility ( Butler et al., 2003 ), originality and usefulness ( Baer et al., 2008 ), and number of ideas ( Brown et al., 1998 ). However, there have been debates regarding the relationship between personal constructs and group creativity outcomes due to mixed findings. Coursey et al. (2018) provided a review of individual factors in group creativity activities. In their overview, they stated (p. 26-27): “It is presumed that there will be some degree of similarity between the effects observed for individuals and groups. However, we have highlighted a number of ways in which the effects of individual differences may not be simply additive. […] Thus, in agreement with the configural perspective of Moynihan and Peterson (2004) , certain team compositions may be ideal for groups that go through the full phases of the creative process. One strategy would be to compose a team that had the ‘right mixture’ for the multiple phases, or one could compose separate teams specifically for different phases.” Indeed, in a group setting, some social traits can improve creativity potential, for example, traits leading group members to be more attentive to the ideas of others, to process the shared ideas including the more radical ones, to be more motivated and persistent in the search for new ideas, to build on the ideas of others, and to share new ideas. We have summarized the list of personal factors we considered in this meta-analysis in Table 1 . Table 1. Commonly used measures of personal factors in creative groups. Main term Definition Literature Description of results Personality trait (Based on Costa & McCrae, 1992 , p. 5-6) Openness to experience “The term to refer to a broader constellation of traits. High-O individuals are imaginative and sensitive to art and beauty and have a rich and complex emotional life; they are intellectually curious, behaviorally flexible, and nondogmatic in their attitudes and values.” Schilpzand et al. (2011 , p. 67) “As expected, we found that openness to experience was important for creative team outcomes.” Extraversion “a broad group of traits, including sociability, activity, and the tendency to experience positive emotions such as joy and pleasure.” Jung et al. (2012 , p. 30) “In the first experiment, extraverts outperformed introverts in computer-mediated groups. In the second experiment, we exposed participants in computer-mediated groups to four levels of idea stimulation ranging from none to extremely high. Extraverts generated more unique and diverse ideas than did introverts in moderate- and high-stimuli conditions only.” Conscientiousness “Conscientiousness is a dimension that contrasts scrupulous, well-organized, and diligent people with lax, disorganized, and lackadaisical individuals.” Baer et al. (2008 , p. 274) “In addition to demonstrating that teams composed primarily of individuals high on extraversion, high on openness, or low on conscientiousness were highly creative when team creative confidence was high, our results also indicated that composing teams mainly of high neuroticism or of low agreeableness members had little effect on team creativity.” Agreeableness “Agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal behavior. High-A individuals are trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative; low-A individuals are cynical, callous, and antagonistic” Taggar (2002 , p. 323) “An individual's extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are positively associated with intragroup process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level). In the regression equation, about 31 percent (p < .001) of the variation in intragroup process behavior was explained. Beta weights showed that conscientiousness contributed mostly to explaining team creativity- relevant processes at the individual level, followed by extraversion and agreeableness”. Neuroticism “The individual's tendency to experience psychological distress.” Baer et al. (2008 , p. 260) “The above arguments suggest that teams composed of members who are likely to criticize others’ ideas and to provide candid feedback, that is, individuals high on neuroticism, should possess the potential to experience creative synergies.” Emotion Social anxiety “Been nervous or feeling discomfortable in a social context ( Leary & Kowalki, 1993 )”. Camacho & Paulus (1995 , p. 1078) “The results reported suggest that when social anxiousness is minimized, group brainstorming can be nearly as productive as nominal group brainstorming. Our results thus suggest that interactive brainstorming may be best suited for people who are low in social anxiety.” Emotional intelligence “The ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions”. ( Wang, 2015 , p. 325) Wang (2015 , p. 340) “The present study […] showed that average member EI increased elaboration, which in turn led to better performance in the informationally diverse condition.” Cognition Cognitive style “Individuals who tend to stick to a topic are known as convergent thinker. Individus who are more likely to free-associate and jump between topics are known as divergent thinkers.” ( Brown et al., 1998 , p. 498) Brown et al. (1998 , p. 519) “When a divergent thinker changes from a divergent partner to a convergent partner, their output (spoken ideas) increases. When a convergent thinker changes from a convergent partner to a divergent partner, their output decreases.” Need for Closure “a desire for a definite answer to a question, any firm answer, rather than uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity” ( Chirumbolo, 2005 , p. 61) Chirumbolo et al. (2005 , p. 74) “The need for cognitive closure exerts an adverse effect on creativity in groups. Specifically, groups composed of individuals high (vs. low) in need for closure revealed a lower degree of productivity across multiple measures of group creativity. High (vs. low) need for-closure groups exhibited significantly lesser fluency of ideas.” Creative Self-efficacy “The capacity judgement about creative endeaviors” ( Richter et al., 2012 , p. 1283) Richter et al. (2012 , p. 1287) “The positive relation between [creative self-efficacy] and creativity was stronger in teams with greater shared [knowledge of who knows what].” Epistemic Motivation “Group members’ epistemic motivation—their willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough and rich understanding of the world, including the group task or decision problem at hand” ( Bechtoldt et al., 2010 , p. 623) Bechtoldt et al. (2010 , p. 633) “We proposed that group creativity improves when members have high rather than low epistemic motivation. With regard to creative fluency—the number of nonredundant ideas and insights generated by the group— our hypothesis was supported in all three tests.” Need for Cognition “The tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking” ( Huang and Liu, 2021 , p. 2) Huang and Liu (2021 , p. 1) “Psychological safety climate and the need for cognition were positively associated with team creativity through information elaboration.” To point out important findings in the literature, Feist (1998) asserted that creative individuals need to balance between social stimulation and quiet reflection. Therefore, extroverted people may show better creative performance in some groups, depending on the need to interact with others (see also Anderson et al., 2008 ). Conscientiousness, which leads people to adhere to norms and rules ( Roberts et al., 2009 ), may help generate a high number of ideas, but not necessarily ideas that are original or useful. This idea is supported by Feist (1998) , who found that artists, who need to develop original ideas individually, were generally low in conscientiousness. Agreeableness is a strong predictor of team performance because it is related to trust and morale ( Hogan et al., 1994 ). However, creative people are generally low in agreeableness ( Bechtoldt et al., 2012 ; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016 ). Low neuroticism could be a more beneficial trait to have in a group creativity setting ( Bell, 2007 ; Da Costa et al., 2015 ; Peeters et al., 2008 ). Other personal factors can have differential links with various creativity outcomes. Emotional factors can play a role ( Kuška et al., 2020 ), such as anxiety ( Camacho & Paulus, 1995 ), and emotional intelligence ( Wang, 2015 ). It is also the case for cognitive dispositions such as cognitive orientation or cognitive styles ( Brown et al., 1998 ), and other cognitive traits such as creative self-efficacy ( Taggar, 2019 ; Tierney & Farmer, 2002 ), epistemic motivation ( Bechtoldt et al., 2010 ), Need for Closure ( Chirumbolo et al., 2004 , 2005 ), and Need for Cognition ( Wu et al., 2014 ). For example, Need for Closure, a cognitive tendency to avoid ambiguity, is related to the quality of ideas generated but not originality ( Watts et al., 2017 ). Most studies mentioned above examined the relationships of interest at the individual level. At the time of writing, there is no literature review or meta-analysis on the relationship between personal factors and creativity outcomes in a group setting. Research aims and Hypotheses In this study, we sought to examine: (1) the overall relationship between personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings; and (2) moderators of these relationships. Moderators We examined different moderators in the relationships between personal factors and group creativity outcomes, including environmental influence on how the activity was conducted, tasks factors related to the rules of the creative activity, and personal factors such as demographic variables. Our moderator hypotheses were exploratory and mostly based on the last review available on the subject ( Coursey et al., 2018 ). In this review, researchers indicated that there were very few studies on the subject, and we expected some moderators to be untestable meta-analytically in the absence of primary-level empirical data. We explored and reported all available relationships. In italics below are the hypotheses for which the literature on the subject tends to provide evidence for a relationship. Familiarity Familiarity with the group is the extent to which group members know each other ( Sosa & Marle, 2013 ). For example, familiarity can range from participants who do not know each other in a laboratory setting to teammates who have already worked with each other for a long time. In the study conducted by Sosa and Marle (2013) , it was found that the more familiar group members are to one another, the better the creative outcomes. We hypothesized that individuals who struggle with novelty will produce better group creativity outcomes if they are familiar with the other group members. These groups include participants high in introversion ( Orengo Castellá et al., 2000 ), Need for Closure ( Chirumbolo et al., 2004 ), and social anxiety ( Camacho & Paulus, 1995 ). Familiarity : In a non-familiar context, introversion, need for closure and social anxiety are negatively associated with creative outcomes. In a familiar context, the negative correlations are weaker than in a non-familiar context. Skill and knowledge diversity The idea behind skill diversity is similar to familiarity: people who are closer to each other tend to bond easier, leading to less perceived stress and a more positive social climate, resulting in better creative outcomes. At the same time, synergy can be difficult in an overly homogeneous group, because not every member adds creative value beyond the others ( Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002 ). A group with members who have substantial overlap in skills and knowledge may have limited creativity due to a lack of diversity. We exploratively tested the moderation hypothesis that skill and knowledge diversity in a group modifies the relationships between personality traits and creative outcomes. Group demography Diversity with respect to hierarchical status, gender, age, and field of study, leads groups to be more creative ( Choi, 2007 ; Paulus & van der Zee, 2015 ). In small groups, and using electronic brainstorming, research indicated that groups composed of women showed greater fluency (i.e., produced more ideas) than mixed groups, groups composed of men, or “solo” groups ( Peter et al., 2021 ). For group creativity, competition had a positive effect on creative outcomes for groups composed of men, but a negative effect for groups composed of women ( Baer, 2013 ). We explored the hypothesis that group demography modifies the relationships between personality traits and creative outcomes. Constraint Constraint refers to the degree of freedom in creative activity. Two major types of constraints can be implemented in brainstorming activities: production blocking, which prohibits members from sharing their ideas as they come to mind, and asynchrony, which means that participants generate ideas individually before sharing them with each other. In the production blocking condition, individual factors are less important for creativity ( Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006 ) than in the non-production blocking condition, whereas in the asynchronous condition, individual factors are more important than in the synchronous condition ( Paulus & Kenworthy, 2018 ). Constraint : In a production blocking setting, the relationships between individual factors and creative outcomes are lower than in a non-production blocking setting. In an asynchrony setting, the relationships between individual factors and creative outcomes are higher than in a synchrony setting. Type of task The type of task can influence the relationship between personal factors and creative outcomes. In conjunctive tasks, creative tasks in which participants pass ideas from one to another, the performance of the group is most strongly influenced by persons with traits that are highly positively or negatively related to creative outcomes. In disjunctive tasks, where participants share ideas before their selection, the influence of each individual is weaker because they do not influence the sharing process ( Coursey et al., 2018 ). We explored the evidence for an effect of this type of task in creative processes. Type of task : In disjunctive tasks, the relationships between personal factors and creative outcomes are smaller in magnitude (regardless of sign) than in conjunctive tasks. Creative phase Harvey (2013) found that the diversity of ideas was positively related to divergent creativity (i.e., the mental process leading to producing ideas that are different, varied, and original), and negatively to convergent thinking (i.e., the mental process leading to narrowing the set of ideas generated towards a solution). Furthermore, convergent thinkers performed better in the convergent phase than in the divergent phase; divergent thinkers performed better in the divergent phase than in the convergent phase. As hypothesized by Coursey et al. (2018) , introverts could be better at building and integrating creative ideas in the convergent phase, while extroverts could be less inhibited and make more contributions during the divergent phase. Creative phase : Divergent thinking and extraversion are more strongly and positively associated with creative outcomes in the divergent phase than in the convergent phase. Convergent thinking and introversion are less negatively associated with creative outcomes in the convergent phase than in the divergent phase. Number of participants The number of group members is critical in creating, sharing, and transforming ideas and information into projects. The number 5 is generally admitted as optimal in terms of maximizing interacting group performance ( Steiner, 1972 ). As the number increases, the creative performance of the group decreases ( Fellers, 1989 ). The problem is that, as the number of participants increases, the likelihood of dysfunctional behaviors also increases (i.e., dominance by individual members, fear of personal evaluation, fear of speaking in public, pressure for conformity, and task restrictions, see Fellers, 1989 ). For personal factors, the number of participants might “dilute” the creative contribution of each member, leading to a weaker (positive or negative) relationship. Dugosh et al. (2000) also found that high levels of off-task communication were detrimental in face-to-face brainstorming groups, and that off-task communication increases with the number of participants (particularly extrovert participants). Number of participants : the higher the number of people who participate in the activity, the weaker the (negative or positive) relationships between personal factors and creative outcomes. Time pressure The possibility to create and share information depends on the time available. Most creative tasks are structured and time-limited, mostly because creativity is mentally effortful. Time limitation is detrimental to group creativity ( Karau & Kelly, 1992 ). Chirumbolo et al. (2004) found that time pressure reduced the percentage of creative acts during a group discussion and was positively related to personal need for closure (both reduced creative outcomes). Time pressure : the negative relationship between need for closure and creative outcomes in group creativity is stronger under time pressure than under no pressure. Leadership It is challenging to assess how the leadership type will influence the relationship between personal factors and creativity. We decided to split leadership into two traditional types: transformational and transactional. In transformational leadership, the leader clearly states the goal and pushes the group toward attaining this goal. In transactional leadership, the leader relies on an exchange process in which group members are rewarded for accomplishing specific goals ( Jung, 2001 ; Mumford et al., 2019 ). Research has found that transformational leadership leads to higher creative outcomes than transactional leadership ( Jung, 2001 ; Sosik & Cameron, 2010 ; Zhang et al., 2011 ). Sosik and Cameron (2010) indicated that transformational leadership was related to an increase in motivation to create more ideas and ideas that are more original. On the contrary, Taggar (2019) explained that a cohesive team might follow the dominant actors in the team instead of trying to find more ideas. Thus, he hypothesized that excessively strong cohesion in a team following a (transformational) leader could impair creative collective efficacy. Anderson and Fiedler (1964) also showed that groups with participatory leaders (i.e., transactional leaders) had the highest number of ideas generated, and groups with supervisory leaders had the most original and useful ideas. We hypothesized that the leadership type has an effect on the relationship between personality and creative outcomes. Leaders close to the team who create a non-judgmental climate could help improve the performance of anxious, introverted, and less motivated members. On the other side, leaders with a more distant relationship with the group, in the exchange process to attain the goal and who do not contribute to the task, could reduce the performance of these members, reducing the global creative performance. We explored the hypothesis that the type of leadership influences the relationships between personality traits and creative outcomes, leading to giving more weight to the indication from Sosik and Cameron (2010) that transformational leadership leads to a stronger positive link or to the explanation of Taggar (2019) that transactional leadership leads to a stronger positive link. Publication status We examined publication status for possible moderating effects on the relationship between personal factors and creativity outcomes. Several recent meta-analyses ( Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020 ; Moreau & Gamble, 2020 ; Schmucker et al., 2017 ; Vosgerau et al., 2019 ) have suggested that including unpublished work can help improve the capture of the ‘true’ effect size. Accordingly, we expected that studies that were published are likely to report stronger associations than those that remained unpublished. Publication status : published studies report stronger negative and positive relationships than unpublished studies. Methods Open Science Disclosures We shared all procedures, materials, datasets, and analysis code on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/xwph9/ ). The pre-registration and additional information about decisions are available in the supplementary materials of the extended data. We deviated from Stage 1 with the following: We did not use Scopus because we were not able to access it. We modified keywords during the literature search to have more results, as our first search was too restrictive. Finally, we have not conducted all publication bias tests mentioned, and the cumulative test because of the lack of studies to conduct them. Design P ersonal factors are explained in Table 1 . They consist of personality traits : 1) openness, 2) conscientiousness, 3) extraversion, 4) agreeableness, 5) neuroticism; emotion : 1) social anxiety and 2) emotional intelligence; cognition : 1) Cognitive style, 2) epistemic motivation, 3) self-efficacy, 4) need for closure, 5) Need for Cognition. The three categories of creative outcomes are 1) number of ideas generated, 2) originality of these ideas and 3) usefulness of the ideas. Eligibility criteria Studies including personal factors (see Table 1 ) and measuring creative outcomes in group settings are included in our analysis. Search strategy Database searches. To identify articles that are potentially relevant to our topic of investigation, we conducted searches using Google Scholar, Psychinfo, Web of Science - social science citation index, Proquest- dissertations and theses (for suitability, see Gehanno et al., 2013 ; Martin-Martin et al., 2019 ; Moreau & Gamble, 2020 ). For personal factors, the keywords were personality trait*, openness, extraversion, introversion, conscientiousness, agreeability, neuroticism, anxiety, social anxiety, thinking style, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, Need for Closure, creative self-efficacy, epistemic motivation, Need for Cognition, emotional intelligence. For creative outcomes, the keyword was simply “creativity.” Initially, we had planned to use more specific search terms (such as “number of ideas”); however, this led to very few results which prompted us to switch to a broader search strategy. All search patterns included the following operators: “group*” OR “team” AND “correlation” . During the search, keywords related to constructs were linked with the Boolean logic operators “OR” and keywords between construct 1 and construct 2 with “AND”. Variations of the keywords were included in the search with the original keywords if search results yielded fewer than 100 results, linked with “OR”. (e.g., “personality trait*” AND “useful*”). More information on the search pattern process can be found in the coding sheet under the tab “search pattern.” Database searches for each search pattern were terminated after combing through 30 records consecutively without potentially relevant papers for the inclusion criteria. The search included papers listed under the “related articles” and “cited by” features in Google Scholar to identify papers that are similar or have cited the identified articles. We looked at other articles that were published by identified authors in the field to check if there were relevant papers that we may have missed. We systematically contacted the authors of the identified articles (see the pre-registered email template in the supplement) and issued a call for unpublished findings on ResearchGate and Twitter to find relevant unpublished data. For all the articles, titles, abstracts, tables, and methods sections were scanned to identify the relevance of a source. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Correlational meta-analyses typically exclude studies that manipulated the target variable prior to measurement (e.g., Chevance et al., 2019 ), or alternatively conduct a separate meta-analysis for studies with manipulations or interventions (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2014 ; van Kleeck et al., 2010 ). First, we decided to restrict our meta-analysis to correlational studies that measure personal factors in creative contexts. Studies were excluded if they 1) experimentally manipulated an independent variable related to personal factors (e.g., manipulated motivation, social climate and anxiety, information and Need for Closure, etc.), 2) failed to report the crucial statistics necessary for a meta-analysis (i.e., correlation coefficient or other effect sizes that can be transformed into correlation coefficient, sample size), or 3) were not written in English or French unless all necessary information was provided in English or could be obtained from the authors. Screening Studies that met our criteria were coded into the “Searched articles” tab within the coding sheet. Articles were scanned to determine whether they should be included into the main coding sheet or not. Reasons for exclusion were documented. Authors of studies with missing statistics were contacted for relevant datasets/information through the “contacting author” tab and the corresponding mail template (see supplementary material). If the dataset was provided, we included the article in the main coding tab. Finally, the PRISMA diagram in Figure 1 and the included studies in Table 2 summarize how and which studies were included. Figure 1. Meta-analysis flow diagram in accordance with PRISMA 2020 ( Page et al., 2020 ). Table 2. All studies/datasets included in the meta-analysis. No. Article N Personal factors measured Creative outcome(s) Publication status Country 1 Morgan (1996) 90 Need for cognition Number of Ideas Published USA 2 London (2006) 160 Self-efficacy, anxiety Number of Ideas, originality Published USA 3 Brophy (1995) 375 Need for cognition Number of Ideas Published USA 4 Mutlu (2017) 135 Big Five Number of Ideas, Originality Published UK 5 He (2019) 109 Self-efficacy Originality, Usefulness Published China 6 Lee and Park (2020) 267 Big five Number of Ideas, Originality and Usefulness Published Singapore 7 Bolin and Neuman (2006) 312 Big five Number of Ideas, Originality and Usefulness Published USA 8 Homan et al. (2015) 202 Self-efficacy Number of Ideas, Originality and Usefulness Published Germany 9 Kenworthy (2020) 168 openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, Need for cognition Number of Ideas and originality Published USA 10 Gheorghe (2020) 159 Emotional intelligence Number of Ideas, Originality and Usefulness Published Romania 11 Bechtoldt (2010) 108 Motivation Number of Ideas, Originality and Usefulness Published Netherlands Coding Extracted data from the included studies were recorded in the “main coding sheet” tab. When available, the main correlations between personal factors and creative outcomes were recorded, along with intercorrelations between creative outcomes, the type of scale used, sample demographics, and publication information. Moderator variables were coded in a separate column in the main coding sheet. Analysis We developed a Rmarkdown Script for the statistical analyses. The packages used are indicated in the supplementary material. Our main package for meta-analysis is Psychmeta ( Dahlke & Wiernik, 2019 ). We used Pearson’s correlation coefficient r as the main indicator of effect size. Whenever available, we used correlations obtained directly from authors of original papers. If only regression results were available, we converted to correlation by using a transformation provided in the supplement. If not possible, we asked the authors to provide either the correlation or raw data. Correlations were corrected for attenuation by using the formula ( Dahlke & Wiernik, 2020 ): r c = r obs r xx ′ r yy ′ Given the range of different outcomes for each category, we expected the heterogeneity in the sample to be relatively high. Thus, a random effect model was used for all relationships. Split conditions due to moderators were collapsed to allow for comparison of the relationships. All conversions and coding decisions were documented. A meaningful association is expected as having a correlation of at least r = .10 ( Cohen, 1988 ; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016 ; Schäfer & Schwarz, 2019 ). We documented all conversions and coding decisions. We included the original quotes and/or table/page numbers from the original articles into the coding sheet to facilitate reproducibility. We plotted forest plots presenting the correlation for every relationship. We presented the relation with confidence intervals and the sample size of each study. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was determined using an 80% credibility interval (as used in Borenstein et al., 2009 ; Wiernik et al., 2017 ). Wiernik and Kostal (2019) explained how the credibility interval performed better than the most used Q significance test. The main reasons are that the Q test is underpowered in most situations and that it confounds the sample size of studies and the magnitude of effects found in the studies. Finally, Paterson et al. (2016) suggested thresholds for credibility intervals as an indication for moderation (e.g., corrected correlations < .15 as negligible, .15–.24 as small, .25–.39 as moderate, and ≥ .40 as large). If there was indeed meaningful heterogeneity, we explored potential moderators. Our design for the analysis is shown in Table 3 . Table 3. Study design. Question Hypothesis Sampling plan Analysis plan Rationale for deciding the sensitivity of the test for confirming or disconfirming the hypothesis Interpretation given different outcomes Theory that could be shown wrong by the outcomes Summary What is the relationship between personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings? There will be a relationship between personal factors (big 5, emotional and cognitive traits) and creativity outcomes (originality, usefulness, number of ideas) in group settings. Meta-analysis: we systematically collected all the relevant data available in various databases and asked for unpublished studies on Twitter and ResearchGate. We reported the sample size for every relationship. We analyzed data with a psychometric meta-analysis using the psychmeta package ( Dahlke & Wiernik, 2019 ). The effect size is Pearson’s r corrected with internal consistency artifact distributions (alpha or composite reliability). A meaningful association is having a correlation of at least r = .10 (lower side of the credibility interval). An association > .10 was interpreted as a meaningful association, an association < .10 was interpreted as no association or not enough data to draw a conclusion based on the number of studies and participants involved. In both cases, the lack of evidence was only indicated and not interpreted. Theories about creativity were mostly investigated as individual processes. A lack of correlation would only indicate that this personal factor is less important in group settings than in individual creativity for this particular creative outcome. To investigate relationships between a personal factor and a creativity outcome in a group setting, we conducted a correlational meta-analysis. An association higher than r >. 10 may indicate support for the association, leading to the conclusion that a particular individual factor is associated with creativity in a group setting. What are the moderators of the relationships between personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings? Moderators: Familiarity Skill Diversity Group demographics Constraints Task Type Creative Phase Number of Participants Time Leadership Meta-analysis: we systematically collected all the data available in databases and asked for unpublished studies on Twitter and Researchgate. We reported the sample size for every relationship. We added the moderator to the meta-analytic models. We reported correlations for all relationships at a moderator level and compared the levels with a Q test based on the subgroups’ fixed effects. A significant Cochran’s Q test determined if there was support for differences between levels of each moderator. Most of our moderators’ hypotheses are exploratory hypotheses ( Coursey et al., 2018 ). Thus, an absence of evidence was only seen as a hypothesis not to investigate further. To investigate moderators for the relationship between a personal factor and a creativity outcome in a group setting, we conducted a correlational meta-analysis with the moderator included. A significant Cochran’s Q test can indicate support for a difference between levels of a particular moderator explaining how the context can influence the relationships between personal factors and creative outcomes. Does publication status influence the relationships between personal factors and creativity outcomes? Publication status influences the status of the relationships. Specifically, published studies are likely to yield larger effect sizes than unpublished studies. Meta-analysis: we systematically collected all the data available in databases and asked for unpublished studies on Twitter and Researchgate. We reported the sample size for every relationship. We added publication status to the meta-analytic model. We intended to report the fixed meta-analytical effect sizes for published and unpublished studies. A significant Cochran’s Q test determined if there was support for a difference between published and unpublished studies. The purpose of this moderator is to flag possible publication bias and no theory is involved. We conducted a moderator meta-analysis with the publication status. A significant Cochran’s Q test can indicate support for a difference between published and unpublished studies. Exploratory analyses Initially, we had planned to include additional possible moderators that emerged during the literature search. Due to the low number of studies, such additional exploratory analyses were not possible. Publication bias To address possible biases, we corrected for sampling error and measurement error, as indicated in the guidelines for psychometric meta-analyses ( Schmidt & Hunter, 2015 ). Reliability was corrected using internal consistency artifact distributions (alpha or composite reliability) compiled from studies included in the present meta-analysis. A summary of weighted mean internal consistency can be found in the supplementary materials. We had originally planned to conduct a sensitivity analysis ( Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020 ) with the use of cumulative meta-analysis but could not do so due to the lack of studies. Finally, we conducted a PET-PEESE analysis ( Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2014 ) and a p-curve analysis ( Simonsohn et al., 2014 ). Results Meta-analytic results are shown in Table 4 . There were 25 combinations, and for 12 of them (48%), only one effect size was available, making it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. Of the studies available for meta-analysis, only three constructs suggest a positive non-zero relationship: the relationship between creative self-efficacy and the number of ideas generated (ρ = .35, 95%IC [.04, .67]) the originality of ideas (ρ = .35, [.09, .60]), and the usefulness of ideas (ρ = .49, [.33, .65]). Table 4. Summary of Meta-Analysis findings. Personality trait Creativity outcome k N r ¯ SD r SD res ρ ¯ SDrc SD 95% CI 80% CR Openness Number of ideas 4 879 .18 .15 .14 .22 .19 .17 [−.08, .52] [−.05, .50] Originality 4 879 .00 .19 .18 .00 .24 .22 [−.38, .39] [−.36, .37] Usefulness 1 267 .14 — — .18 — — [ .03, .34] [—, —] Conscientiousness Number of ideas 4 879 −.06 .15 .13 −.07 .17 .15 [−.35, .21] [−.32, .18] Originality 4 879 −.10 .07 .03 −.12 .09 .03 [−.26, .02] [−.17, −.06] Usefulness 1 267 −.09 — — −.11 — — [−.27, .04] [—, —] Extraversion Number of ideas 4 879 .08 .13 .11 .10 .15 .13 [−.14, .33] [−.11, .31] Originality 4 879 −.06 .08 .04 −.08 .09 .05 [−.23, .07] [−.16, .00] Usefulness 1 267 −.12 — — −.15 — — [−.30, −.00] [—, —] Agreeability Number of ideas 3 711 .03 .08 .05 .04 .10 .06 [−.22, .29] [−.08, .15] Originality 3 711 −.02 .10 .07 −.03 .12 .09 [−.34, .28] [−.20, .14] Usefulness 1 267 .06 — — .08 — — [−.08, .24] [—, —] Neuroticism Number of ideas 3 711 −.03 .05 .00 −.04 .06 .00 [−.18, .10] [−.04, −.04] Originality 3 711 −.06 .19 .18 −.08 .25 .23 [−.69, .53] [−.52, .35] Usefulness 1 267 −.07 — — −.09 — — [−.25, .07] [—, —] Social anxiety Number of ideas 1 160 −.17 — — −.19 — — [−.36, −.02] [—, —] Emotional intelligence Number of ideas 1 159 .01 — — .01 — — [−.18, .21] [—, —] Originality 1 159 .09 — — .12 — — [−.08, .32] [—, —] Usefulness 1 159 .05 — — .07 — — [−.14, .28] [—, —] Self-efficacy Number of ideas 2 352 .30 .03 .00 .35 .04 .00 [ .04, .67] [ .35, .35] Originality 3 461 .28 .08 .03 .35 .10 .04 [ .09, .60] [ .27, .42] Usefulness 2 301 .39 .01 .00 .49 .02 .00 [ .33, .65] [ .49, .49] Epistemic motivation Number of ideas 1 108 .48 — — .51 — — [ .36, .66] [—, —] Originality 1 108 .02 — — .02 — — [−.19, .23] [—, —] Usefulness 1 108 .29 — — .33 — — [ .14, .53] [—, —] Moderator analyses Due to the extremely small number of effect sizes, it was not possible to analyze all moderators. Table 5 summarizes the moderator data. Table 5. Moderators of the link between personal factors and group creativity. Moderator Information Familiarity β = -0.06, p = 0.25, no sign of an effect ( k = 52). Skill and Knowledge Diversity Only one study used this moderator (i.e. Brophy, 1995 ). Group Demography Only one study with diverse participants (i.e. Homan et al., 2015 ). Constraint No study with constraint Type of Task No study with conjunctive tasks Creative phase Only one study reported an effect size for the convergent phase (i.e., Brophy, 1995 ). Number of participants β = -0.01, p = .64, no sign of effect ( k = 72). Time limit β = 0.01, p = .01 weak but significant effect ( k = 60). Leadership One study on transformational leadership, no study on transactional leadership Publication status All included studies are published. Gender β = 0.00, p = .95, no sign of an effect ( k = 62). In particular, only one moderator is significant, the effect of time ( β = 0.01, p = .01). However, the β estimator is small and indicates that each minute spent in the creativity session increases the relationship between personal factors and creative outcomes by r = .01. Additionally, the residual heterogeneity test is significant, indicating that other uncaptured moderators are at work ( Q = 382.19, p < .001). Inter-correlations The inter-correlations between the creative outcomes provide no evidence for a relationship between the number of ideas and originality (7 studies, ρ = -.01, [-.30, .29]), a positive relationship between the number of ideas and usefulness (2 studies, ρ = .67, [.670, .674]), and originality and usefulness (2 studies, ρ = .47 [.10, .85]). For the personality traits, 4 studies found a weak relationship between openness and extraversion ρ = .18, [.02, .33] (see Table 6 ). Table 6. Inter-correlations between creative outcomes, and between personal constructs. First construct Second construct k N r ¯ S D r S D res ρ ¯ S D r c S D ρ 95% CI 80% CR Number of ideas Originality 7 1 390 −.01 .32 .31 −.01 .32 .31 [−.30, .29] [−.46, .44] Number of ideas Usefulness 2 351 .67 .00 .00 .67 .00 .00 [.67, .67] [.67, .67] Originality Usefulness 2 351 .47 .04 .00 .47 .04 .00 [.10, .85] [.47, .47] Self-Efficacy Social Anxiety 1 160 −.49 — — −.49 — — [−.61, −.37] [—, —] Openness Conscientiousness 4 879 .15 .17 .16 .15 .17 .16 [-.12, .42] [−.11, .40] Openness Extraversion 4 879 .18 .10 .07 .18 .10 .07 [.02, .33] [.06, .29] Openness Agreeability 3 711 .11 .14 .13 .11 .14 .13 [−.25, .47] [−.13, .35] Openness Neuroticism 3 711 .01 .16 .14 .01 .16 .14 [−.38, .41] [−.26, .28] Conscientiousness Extraversion 4 879 .19 .24 .23 .19 .24 .23 [−.19, .58] [−.19, .58] Conscientiousness Agreeability 3 711 .23 .19 .18 .23 .19 .18 [−.24, .71] [−.11, .57] Conscientiousness Neuroticism 3 711 −.05 .36 .35 −.05 .36 .35 [−.93, .84] [−.70, .61] Conscientiousness Need for Cognition 1 168 .42 — — .42 — — [.30, .55] [—, —] Extraversion Agreeability 3 711 .19 .14 .12 .19 .14 .12 [−.15, .54] [−.04, .43] Extraversion Neuroticism 3 711 −.11 .45 .44 −.11 .45 .44 [−.22, 1.00] [−.94, .72] Extraversion Need for Cognition 1 168 .07 — — .07 — — [−.08, .22] [—, —] Agreeability Neuroticism 3 711 −.02 .34 .33 −.02 .34 .33 [−.86, .82] [−.64, .61] Power analysis We created a sunset plot in Figure 2 to display the statistical power of studies included in the meta-analysis. The average power is 13.5% and the replicability index 0% which means that we have no chance to reject H0 when there is a true effect, and no chance at all to replicate one study given the median average power of studies included in the meta-analysis and success rates of these studies (see Motyl et al., 2017 for R-index). Figure 2. Power test of all studies. Reliability Table 7 presents the mean reliability scale of all variables included. The reliability was high across all variables, between.75 and.91. Table 7. Mean reliability scale. Variable Artifact k N m sd sd.res Need for cognition qxi_irr 2 465 .866 .035 .031 rxxi_irr 2 465 .751 .061 .055 Self-efficacy qxi_irr 3 461 .908 .027 .023 rxxi_irr 3 461 .825 .049 .042 Agreeableness qxi_irr 2 402 .865 .047 .043 rxxi_irr 2 402 .750 .080 .074 Extraversion qxi_irr 3 570 .915 .020 .016 rxxi_irr 3 570 .838 .036 .029 Conscientiousness qxi_irr 3 570 .905 .026 .022 rxxi_irr 3 570 .820 .046 .040 Neuroticism qxi_irr 2 402 .864 .008 .000 rxxi_irr 2 402 .747 .013 .000 Openness qxi_irr 3 570 .877 .033 .029 rxxi_irr 3 570 .769 .059 .051 Number of ideas qxi_irr 6 1 401 .945 .047 .046 rxxi_irr 6 1 401 .896 .089 .088 Originality qxi_irr 7 1 313 .907 .074 .072 rxxi_irr 7 1 313 .827 .133 .131 Usefulness qxi_irr 4 676 .871 .047 .044 rxxi_irr 4 676 .761 .086 .080 Publication bias The PET-PEESE analysis was not significant (PET: t = 1.95, p = .06; PEESE: t = 1.85, p = .07). In particular, the average correlation found by the PET test is r = -.17 [-.40, .06] and by the PEESE test r = -.06 [-.18, .06] which indicates an effect size close to 0 with a tendency to be rather negative. The p-curve test indicated no signs of unpublished non-significant results (see Figure 3 ). It also indicated a statistical power of 93% [0.88, 0.97]. However, in the case where there are few effect sizes and strong heterogeneity, the p-curve test is not reliable ( van Aert et al., 2016 ). Figure 3. P-curve analysis. Regarding the cumulative analysis, it was not possible to perform it because of the too small number of studies included in the analysis (< 20). Discussion Personal factors related to creativity in group setting This meta-analysis investigated the links between personal factors and group creativity. The results are limited, given the very few studies and thus the very few effect sizes we could include. We found support for only one relationship, positive, between self-efficacy and all three creativity outcomes: the number, originality, and utility of ideas. These results, although disappointing, are not so surprising. In 2018, Coursey and colleagues wrote (p. 2-3): “ Whereas many studies have examined the role of individual differences in individual creativity, relatively few have examined the role of individual differences in group and team creativity. ” A little further on, they concluded ( Coursey et al., 2018 , p. 26): “ We have provided an overview of how individual difference factors may influence group creativity. Much of this is based on the literature concerning individual differences in individual creativity. It is presumed that there will be some degree of similarity between the effects observed for individuals and group s.” Our systematic review confirms that the majority of studies are based on individual creativity, as we found only 11 studies to include in our meta-analysis. Focusing on the creativity side, out of the 758 articles selected—with the criterion requiring the exact term “group” or the exact term “team” to be mentioned—160 studies concerned individual creativity, creative personality, perception of being creative, creative potential, or creative intelligence. Furthermore, when selecting the most used indicators in the creativity literature (number, originality, and usefulness of ideas), we found that the majority of studies did not measure group creativity with these indicators. Seventy-two studies measured perceived creativity, whether by other team members or by the manager. In most of these studies, creativity was measured by Zhou and George’s (2001) 13-item scale, an example of which is “the team/team member suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives” or “the team/team member often has new or innovative ideas”. The scale has not been psychometrically evaluated and there seems to be no evidence of a link between the scores on this scale and the actual creativity of individuals. We have not found any studies that measured both perceived creativity with this scale and group creative outcomes. In addition to this measure, about 20 studies measured ‘general team performance’, asking a question about creativity in this performance, or about creative decision-making in a team, but then measured only the choice made by the team. In contrast, direct measures of creativity were much rarer. This could be because such measures require experts in the creative area who can code ideas according to the indicators used (numbers, originality, and usefulness of ideas). Finally, despite the selection criteria, 181 results were not about creativity or did not measure it, with the word “creativity” being mentioned in the introduction or discussion of the study. Furthermore, there was a small number of studies that manipulated individual factors, for example by measuring personality traits prior to experimentation, and by creating groups by separating individuals according to their level (low or high) on a personality trait. Others measured, for example, optimism, individualism, temperament, depression, envy, critical thinking, or self-constructs. In total, these exclusion criteria applied to 136 studies. It would be possible to conduct an experimental meta-analysis on the subject, which would not measure the relationship between individual factors and group creativity but the impact of a particular personality trait on group creativity. However, the results could be as disparate and inconclusive as in this meta-analysis, as other exclusion criteria would apply. Indeed, many of these studies also included only measures of perceived creativity, measures of individual creativity, and some were qualitative in nature. Thus, it is not clear that a meta-analysis of this type would provide enough effect sizes to conduct an informative analysis. Out of the 11 studies included, 1 is from 2019, and 3 are from 2020, a sign that personality factors and group creativity are currently being investigated. In this sense, it is possible that this meta-analysis came a bit too early compared to the primary studies on the subject. Time limit The moderator analysis revealed a possible weak effect of time on the relationship between personal factors and creativity outcomes, as each minute spent in the creativity session increases the relationship between personal factors and creative outcomes by r = .01. However, given the limitation of the data, we could not test the hypothesis on cognitive closure. Most of the studies included in the analysis had a time constraint between 5 and 10 minutes, and for these studies, the moderation analysis revealed no effect. The effect of time limit was found for the studies comparing 10 and 20 minutes; the relationships were systematically stronger for the 20 minutes than for the 10 minutes condition. This finding suggests that a longer session leads to a stronger possibility for participants to express their individuality in group creative tasks, at least up to 20 minutes. We are limited in the generalizability of our findings, as the relationships were only found for 5 associations relating self-efficacy to originality/usefulness. Future research directions The results of this meta-analysis may help to improve the field of research linking creativity and personality. First, we built on the conjecture of Coursey et al. (2018) and improved current knowledge by systematically quantifying the data on the subject. We found that the available data was limited. Very few studies measure group creativity. Most studies measure perceived creativity, through questionnaires and surveys, and some studies make up their own measures of creativity, according to their own criteria. It would be possible to improve our knowledge of group creativity by using standardized creativity methods and protocols and by using direct measures, especially as in the majority of the studies included, inter-expert reliability was high, indicating that the perception of creativity is shared among experts. Only one personal factor had a positive relationship with the three group creative outcomes: self-efficacy. This is not surprising, as self-efficacy is one of the most widely used individual factors in psychology. For example, the book Self-efficacy: The exercise of control ( Bandura, 1997 ) is cited 108 314 times on Google scholar (December 2022). The other social, cognitive, and emotional factors seem to be less studied or not studied in correlational studies. Surprisingly, many studies reported some personality traits, but not all. In the same way that some researchers use their own way of measuring creativity, others only partially measure personality (sometimes measuring types and not traits, or a single trait). This treatment of personal factors limits the possibilities of aggregating data in meta-analysis. The field could be improved by using standardized personality questionnaires and reporting all data points necessary. Several studies measured the relationship between individual factors and group creativity, but as they did not report information essential for a meta-analysis, we could not include them. Of the 11 studies included, we requested the information for 6 of them. 8 additional studies could not be included because we were unable to contact the authors. Thus, we could have nearly doubled the number of studies included if information had been made available. The field of the research could be improved by systematically sharing the raw data and the analysis conducted. In addition to the benefit of the aggregation into a meta-analysis, this would allow for the conduct of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses ( van Aert, 2022 ). A traditional meta-analysis is conducted at the group level - in other words, by asking the question “How do average group personal factors correlate with average group creativity?” An IPD meta-analysis can answer a more precise question: “How does an individual’s personality trait in this group correlate with his or her creativity in the group?” This question cannot be answered without data at the individual level. The power of the studies was very low, around 13.5%. The number of participants is quite high (see Table 2 ), but the correlations seem to be extremely low, which requires an extremely high number of participants to indicate an effect if it exists. Again, reporting the raw data at the individual level would increase the precision of the estimates, improving the power of the study without the need to dramatically increase the number of participants. The studies included were conducted in the USA, UK, China, Germany, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Romania. More importantly, many of the studies were performed on students doing group projects. It would be preferable to conduct studies in other contexts, including non-WEIRD, non-student samples. The many moderators that we tried to highlight were not investigated enough or were not investigated at all. We recommend that researchers methodically record all the data relating to the context of the creative activity, in particular the time allocated to participants, the type of task, the number of participants per group, and the individual characteristics of the participants (demographics, type of recruitment, randomization of the participants in groups or not, etc.). Interpretations and implications One should be cautious in drawing a relationship between perceived creativity and actual creativity. For example, Pretz and McCollum (2014) did not find evidence for a relationship between self-rated and expert-rated creativity ( r = -.07). Professionals wishing to improve group creativity should use objective measures of creativity, or expert observations, rather than relying on personal or peer measures. This could be done through a common definition of originality and usefulness, followed by a pre-test rating by peers. To this objective, it is possible to define an intra-class correlation threshold for which the correlation is high enough to indicate that observers are homogeneously rating the originality and usefulness of ideas (typical thresholds are between 0.75 and 0.90, Koo & Li, 2016 ). Intraclass correlation is a type of correlation performed on groups of data, unlike Pearson correlation which operates on pairs of data (it is also called interclass correlation); however, the formulas used for both types of correlation are similar. If the intra-class correlation is sufficient, then observers can continue to evaluate ideas. If the correlation is not sufficient, then it is necessary to find the cause of this lack of relationship, which may be related to a misunderstanding of the objective, difficulty in understanding the originality or usefulness of the ideas in relation to the creativity theme, or a difference in the appreciation of the ideas. After the exchange, the experts will carry out the analysis on a new sample until the intra-class correlation is sufficient to score all the ideas. It seems important to increase the attention of researchers and professionals to individual differences in group creativity. Although it is difficult to make recommendations based on the meta-analysis results, the hypotheses stated remain possible. Fostering openness to new ideas, paying attention to factors promoting group dynamics (extraversion, agreeableness, low neuroticism, high emotional intelligence, low social anxiety, and low need for closure), and making sense of the common goal (motivation, need for cognition) remain possible avenues for improving creative outcomes in groups. In particular, a conclusion can be made about creative self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was the only factor to show a positive relationship with group creative outcomes in the meta-analysis. One limitation of this relationship is that creative self-efficacy is not easy to develop. Several recent studies have failed to improve it ( Capron Puozzo & Audrin, 2021 ; Ohly et al., 2017 ). However, these studies had extremely small sample sizes ( n = 69 and n = 23 respectively). It is also possible that there are several types of creative self-efficacy. Hughes et al. (2018) suggested that there are creative leaders and individuals who are more focused on a creativity support function. This leader/supporter distinction could be related to personality traits, but their relationship remains to be investigated. The final finding concerns the environment associated with creativity. In this meta-analysis, only one moderating effect appears to be different from chance, namely time. This is a moderator that has been the subject of many studies on individual and team creativity. In particular, almost a third of the best ideas in terms of originality are generated in the first 5 minutes, and after 15 minutes, less than 10% of the ideas are of very good quality, while 50% of them are judged as bad ( Reinig & Briggs, 2008 ). It is possible that personal factors that promote persistence on task (e.g., motivation, conscientiousness, sense of self-efficacy) also promote the possibility of having original ideas longer, a hypothesis that remains to be tested. Furthermore, in terms of the relationship between constructs, one study ( Jung et al., 2015 ) indicated that people who generate the most ideas also come up with better quality ideas, with quality defined as an average between originality and usefulness. Another application of this type of study for professionals is to build on the most creative individuals to improve the overall creativity of all participants, regardless of their personal factors. Conclusion This meta-analysis was an attempt to understand the relationship between individual factors and group creativity. It shows a link between self-efficacy and indicators of group creativity with a low level of evidence, and a small and positive moderation effect of time. During the search phase, we found that most studies concern individual creativity, and studies concerning group creativity do not directly measure creativity, but the perception of creativity by an internal or observing member of the group. Direct measures of creativity (number of ideas generated, originality, and usefulness) appear to be anecdotal, and the results found seem to mostly indicate a lack of relationship. Self-efficacy, a well-known individual factor in improving performance and learning ( Bandura, 1997 ), is positively associated with all of the group creative outcome measures. In other words, it appears that groups feeling they have the capacity to be creative are indeed creative, whether in terms of the number, originality, or usefulness of the ideas generated by these groups. Authorship declaration Please see the table below. Contributor roles taxonomy. Role AF FG NB LS JK Conceptualization • • • • Pre-registration • Data curation • Formal analysis • Funding acquisition Investigation • Pre-registration peer review/verification • • • • Data analysis peer review/verification • Methodology • • Project administration • Resources • Software • Supervision • • • Validation • • Visualization • Writing-original draft • Writing-review and editing • • • • • Data availability Underlying data The underlying data can be found in Bonnardel et al. (2023) . The data are shared under the license CC-BY 4.0. The project contains the following underlying data: • The meta-analytical dataset (data and code > creativitymeta.xlsx) • Literature search folder (bibliographic data) Extended data The project contains the following underlying data: • Supplementary.pdf (pre-registration information and additional information about decisions, and deviations from Stage 1) • The analysis script (data and code > ma-brainstorm-analysis. Rmd and moderator analysis. Rmd) • The result outputs and figures from the analysis script in the result folder. • The track-changed version of the second stage manuscript in the PCI-RR stage 2: tracked changes version. • The stage 1 files in the Stage 1 folder (data and code with randomized results, Main manuscript.pdf, output of the code, and a supplementary.pdf ) • The Main manuscript.pdf as accepted in Stage 2 by PCI.RR Software availability Source code available from: https://github.com/adrien-fillon/Personal-factors-and-group-creative-outcomes/ Archived source code at time of publication: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XWPH9 in data and code > ma- brainstorm-analysis. Rmd and moderator analysis. Rmd License: Apache License 2.0 Acknowledgments We thank Paul Paulus for conceptual input on the introduction and Brenton Wiernik for help with the statistical analysis. References Amabile TM: Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Harvard Business School Background Note. 1996; pp. 239–396. Anderson LR, Fiedler FE: The effect of participatory and supervisory leadership on group creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 1964; 48 (4): 227–236. Publisher Full Text Anderson C, Spataro SE, Flynn FJ: Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008; 93 (3): 702–710. Publisher Full Text Baer M, Oldham GR, Jacobsohn GC, et al. : The Personality Composition of Teams and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Creative Confidence. J. Creat. Behav. 2008; 42 (4): 255–282. Publisher Full Text Baer J: Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking, Intrinsic Motivation, and Evaluation.Gregerson MB, Kaufman JC, Snyder HT, editors. Teaching Creatively and Teaching Creativity. Springer; 2013; pp. 175–181. Publisher Full Text Bandura A: Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.; 1997. Barron F, Harrington DM: Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1981; 32 (1): 439–476. Publisher Full Text Bechtoldt MN, Choi H-S, Nijstad BA: Individuals in mind, mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012; 48 (4): 838–844. Publisher Full Text Bechtoldt MN, De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, et al. : Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 99 (4): 622–637. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bell ST: Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007; 92 (3): 595–615. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bolin AU, Neuman GA: Personality, Process, and Performance in Interactive Brainstorming Groups. J. Bus. Psychol. 2006; 20 : 565–585. Publisher Full Text Bonnardel N, Didier J: Brainstorming variants to favor creative design. Appl. Ergon. 2020; 83 : 102987. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bonnardel N, Fillon A, Girandola F, et al. : Meta-analysis creativity and personality. [DATASET]. OSF. 2023. Publisher Full Text Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. : Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009. Publisher Full Text Brophy DR: The initial testing of a "tri-level matching theory" of creative problem-solving (Order No. 9615774). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304284004). 1995. Reference Source Brown V, Tumeo M, Larey TS, et al. : Modeling Cognitive Interactions During Group Brainstorming. Small Group Res. 1998; 29 (4): 495–526. Publisher Full Text Butler AB, Scherer LL, Reiter-Palmon R: Effects of Solution Elicitation Aids and Need for Cognition on the Generation of Solutions to Ill-Structured Problems. Creat. Res. J. 2003; 15 (2): 235–244. Publisher Full Text Camacho LM, Paulus PB: The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995; 68 (6): 1071–1080. Publisher Full Text Capron Puozzo I, Audrin C: Improving self-efficacy and creative self-efficacy to foster creativity and learning in schools. Think. Skills Creat. 2021; 42 : 100966. Publisher Full Text Chevance G, Bernard P, Chamberland PE, et al. : The association between implicit attitudes toward physical activity and physical activity behaviour: A systematic review and correlational meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2019; 13 (3): 248–276. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Chirumbolo A, Livi S, Mannetti L, et al. : Effects of Need for Closure on creativity in small group interactions. Eur. J. Personal. 2004; 18 (4): 265–278. Publisher Full Text Chirumbolo A, Mannetti L, Pierro A, et al. : Motivated Closed-Mindedness and Creativity in Small Groups. Small Group Res. 2005; 36 (1): 59–82. Publisher Full Text Choi JN: Group composition and employee creative behaviour in a Korean electronics company: Distinct effects of relational demography and group diversity. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2007; 80 (2): 213–234. Publisher Full Text Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Academic Press; 1988. Costa PT, McCrae RR: Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory.Psychol. Assess.1992; 4 (1): 5–13. Publisher Full Text Coursey LE, Paulus PB, Williams BC, et al. : The Role of Individual Differences in Group and Team Creativity. Individual Creativity in the Workplace. Elsevier; 2018; pp. 311–338. Publisher Full Text Da Costa S, Páez D, Sánchez F, et al. : Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones. 2015; 31 (3): 165–173. Publisher Full Text Dahlke JA, Wiernik BM: psychmeta: An R Package for Psychometric Meta-Analysis. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2019; 43 (5): 415–416. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Dahlke JA, Wiernik BM: Not Restricted to Selection Research: Accounting for Indirect Range Restriction in Organizational Research. Organ. Res. Methods. 2020; 23 (4): 717–749. Publisher Full Text DeRosa DM, Smith CL, Hantula DA: The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007; 23 (3): 1549–1581. Publisher Full Text Dugosh KL, Paulus PB, Roland EJ, et al. : Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000; 79 (5): 722–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Feist GJ: A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1998; 2 (4): 290–309. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Fellers JW: The effect of group size and computer support on group idea generation for creativity tasks: An experimental evaluation using a repeated measures design [Ph.D.]. 1989. Reference Source Gehanno J-F, Rollin L, Darmoni S: Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2013; 13 (1): 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Gheorghe A, Fodor O, Pavelea A: Ups and downs on the roller coaster of task conflict: the role of group cognitive complexity, collective emotional intelligence and team creativity. Psihologia Resurselor Umane. 2020; 18 (1): 23–37. Publisher Full Text Gignac GE, Szodorai ET: Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016; 102 : 74–78. Publisher Full Text Harvey S: A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013; 49 (5): 822–832. Publisher Full Text He W, Hao P, Huang X, et al. : Different roles of shared and vertical leadership in promoting team creativity: Cultivating and synthesizing team members’ individual creativity. Personnel Psychology. Wiley; 2019; Vol. 73 (1): pp. 199–225. Publisher Full Text Hogan R, Curphy GJ, Hogan J: What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. Am. Psychol. 1994; 49 (6): 493–504. Publisher Full Text Homan AC, Buengeler C, Eckhoff RA, et al. : The interplay of diversity training and diversity beliefs on team creativity in nationality diverse teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015; 100 (5): 1456–1467. Publisher Full Text Huang C-Y, Liu Y-C: Influence of need for cognition and psychological safety climate on information elaboration and team creativity. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 2021; 31 : 102–116. Publisher Full Text Hughes DJ, Lee A, Tian AW, et al. : Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 2018; 29 (5): 549–569. Publisher Full Text Jung DI: Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Their Effects on Creativity in Groups. Creat. Res. J. 2001; 13 (2): 185–195. Publisher Full Text Jung JH, Lee Y, Karsten R: The Moderating Effect of Extraversion–Introversion Differences on Group Idea Generation Performance. Small Group Res. 2012; 43 (1): 30–49. Publisher Full Text Jung RE, Wertz CJ, Meadows CA, et al. : Quantity yields quality when it comes to creativity: A brain and behavioral test of the equal-odds rule. Front. Psychol. 2015; 6 : 864. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Karau SJ, Kelly JR: The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992; 28 (6): 542–571. Publisher Full Text Karwowski M, Lebuda I: The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2016; 10 (2): 214–232. Publisher Full Text Kenworthy JB, Marusich LR, Paulus PB, et al. : The Impact of Top Performers in Creative Groups. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2020; 17 : 68–78. Publisher Full Text Koo TK, Li MY: A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016; 15 (2): 155–163. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kuška M, Trnka R, Mana J, et al. : Emotional Creativity: A Meta-analysis and Integrative Review. Creat. Res. J. 2020; 32 (2): 151–160. Publisher Full Text Leary MR, Kowalski RM: The Interaction Anxiousness Scale: Construct and Criterion-Related Validity.J. Pers. Assess.1993; 61 (1): 136–146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lebuda I, Figura B, Karwowski M: Creativity and the Dark Triad: A meta-analysis. J. Res. Pers. 2021; 92 : 104088. Publisher Full Text Lee STH, Park G: Does diversity in team members’ agreeableness benefit creative teams? J. Res. Pers. 2020; 85 : 103913–103932. Publisher Full Text Litchfield RC, Gilson LL, Shalley CE: Can Teams Have a Creative Personality?Feist GJ, Reiter-Palmon R, Kaufman JC, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research. Cambridge University Press; 2017; pp. 354–371. Publisher Full Text London KM: Integrating idea generation and idea evaluation in the study of group creativity: Effects of different group procedures on brainstorming effectiveness and group satisfaction.2006. Reference Source Mathur MB, VanderWeele TJ: Estimating publication bias in meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies: A meta-meta-analysis across disciplines and journal tiers. Res. Synth. Methods. 2020; 12 (2): 176–191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Martin-Martin A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, et al. : Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: Which is best for me? Impact of Social Sciences Blog. 2019. Reference Source McCrae RR, Costa PT: Trait explanations in personality psychology. Eur. J. Personal. 1995; 9 (4): 231–252. Publisher Full Text Meadow A, Parnes SJ, Reese H: Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem-solving test. J. Appl. Psychol. 1959; 43 (6): 413–416. Publisher Full Text Moreau D, Gamble B: Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. 2020. Publisher Full Text Moreland RL, Levine JM, Wingert ML: Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work.Witte EH, Davis JH, editors. Understanding group behavior, Small group processes and interpersonal relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996; pp. 11–35. Morgan SC: Facilitating idea generation in a team context: The effects of technique, perceived organizational support, individual differences, and satisfaction with idea generation (Order No. 9624214). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304321581).1996. Reference Source Motyl M, Demos AP, Carsel TS, et al. : The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2017; 113 (1): 34–58. Publisher Full Text Moynihan LM, Peterson RS: The Role of Personality in Group Processes.Personality and organizations.Schneider B, Smith DB, editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004; pp. 317–345. Mutlu MD: The role of personality composition on team creativity and innovation. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. 2017. Reference Source Mumford MD, Todd EM, Higgs C, et al. : What is needed to think creatively at work? Knowledge and skills. Creativity and Innovation in Organizations; 2019; 41 . . Publisher Full Text Nijstad BA, De Dreu CKW: Creativity and Group Innovation: Creativity and Innovation Implementation. Appl. Psychol. 2002; 51 (3): 400–406. Publisher Full Text Nijstad BA, Stroebe W: How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2006; 10 (3): 186–213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Niu W, Liu D: Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an indicative instruction « to be creative » and a more elaborate heuristic instruction on Chinese student creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2009; 3 (2): 93–98. Publisher Full Text Ohly S, Plückthun L, Kissel D: Developing Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy Based on Design-Thinking: Evaluation of an Elective University Course. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 2017; 16 (1): 125–132. Publisher Full Text Orengo Castellá V, Zornoza Abad AM, Prieto Alonso F, et al. : The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2000; 16 (2): 141–159. Publisher Full Text Osborn AF: Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1963. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020; 118 : 60–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Paterson TA, Harms PD, Steel P, et al. : An Assessment of the Magnitude of Effect Sizes: Evidence From 30 Years of Meta-Analysis in Management. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 2016; 23 (1): 66–81. Publisher Full Text Paulus PB, Kenworthy JB: Overview of team creativity and innovation.Reiter-Palmon R, editor. Team creativity and innovation. Oxford University Press; 2018; pp. 11–38. Publisher Full Text Paulus PB, Nijstad BA: Group Creativity. Oxford University Press; 2003. Publisher Full Text Paulus PB, van der Zee KI : Creative processes in culturally diverse teams.Otten S, van der Zee KI , Brewer M, editors. Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work. Psychology Press; 2015; pp. 108–131. Peeters MAG, Rutte CG, van Tuijl HFJM , et al. : Designing in Teams: Does Personality Matter? Small Group Res. 2008; 39 (4): 438–467. Publisher Full Text Peter L, Michinov N, Besançon M, et al. : Revisiting the Effects of Gender Diversity in Small Groups on Divergent Thinking: A Large-Scale Study Using Synchronous Electronic Brainstorming. Front. Psychol. 2021; 12 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Pretz JE, McCollum VA: Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2014; 8 : 227–236. Publisher Full Text Puryear JS, Kettler T, Rinn AN: Relationships of personality to differential conceptions of creativity: A systematic review. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2017; 11 (1): 59–68. Publisher Full Text Putman VL, Paulus PB: Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. J. Creat. Behav. 2009; 43 (1): 29–40. Publisher Full Text Reinig BA, Briggs RO: On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation. Group Decis. Negot. 2008; 17 (5): 403–420. Publisher Full Text Reiter-Palmon R, Kaufman JC: Creative styles in the workplace: New vs different. Individual creativity in the workplace. Elsevier Academic Press; 2018; pp. 191–202. Publisher Full Text Reiter-Palmon R, Wigert B, de Vreede T : Team Creativity and Innovation. Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Elsevier; 2012; pp. 295–326. Publisher Full Text Richter AW, Hirst G, van Knippenberg D , et al. : Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012; 97 (6): 1282–1290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Roberts BW, Jackson JJ, Fayard JV, et al. : Chapter 25. Conscientiousness.Leary IMR, Hoyle RH, editors. Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. Guilford Press; 2009; pp. 257–273. Schäfer T, Schwarz MA: The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases. Front. Psychol. 2019; 10 : 813. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Schilpzand MC, Herold DM, Shalley CE: Members’ Openness to Experience and Teams’ Creative Performance. Small Group Res. 2011; 42 (1): 55–76. Publisher Full Text Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Postmes T, et al. : The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2014; 140 (4): 921–948. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Schmidt FL, Hunter JE: Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. SAGE Publications, Ltd.; 2015. Publisher Full Text Schmucker CM, Blümle A, Schell LK, et al. : Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (4): e0176210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP: p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2014; 9 (6): 666–681. Publisher Full Text Sosa M, Marle F: Assembling Creative Teams in New Product Development Using Creative Team Familiarity. J. Mech. Des. 2013; 135 : MD-13-1087. Publisher Full Text Sosik JJ, Cameron JC: Character and authentic transformational leadership behavior: Expanding the ascetic self toward others. Consult. Psychol. J. 2010; 62 (4): 251–269. Publisher Full Text Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H: Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Res. Synth. Methods. 2014; 5 (1): 60–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Steiner ID: Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press; 1972. Taggar S: Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model. Acad. Manag. J. 2002; 45 (2): 315–330. Publisher Full Text Taggar S: The Cognitive Underpinnings of Creativity in Teams: Distal and Proximal Antecedents.Paulus PB, Nijstad BA, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation. Oxford University Press; 2019; pp. 9–32. Publisher Full Text Taylor DW, Berry PC, Block CH: Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Adm. Sci. Q. 1958; 3 (1): 23. Publisher Full Text Tierney P, Farmer SM: creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2002; 45 (6): 1137–1148. Publisher Full Text van Aert RCM : Analyzing Data of a Multilab Replication Project With Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis. Z. Psychol. 2022; 230 (1): 60–72. Publisher Full Text van Aert RCM , Wicherts JM, van Assen MALM : Conducting Meta-Analyses Based on p Values: Reservations and Recommendations for Applying p -Uniform and p -Curve. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016; 11 (5): 713–729. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text VanGundy AB: Brain writing for new product ideas: an alternative to brainstorming. J. Consum. Mark. 1984; 1 (2): 67–74. Publisher Full Text Van Kleeck A, Schwarz AL, Fey M, et al. : Should We Use Telegraphic or Grammatical Input in the Early Stages of Language Development With Children Who Have Language Impairments? A Meta-Analysis of the Research and Expert Opinion. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2010; 19 (1): 3–21. Publisher Full Text Vosgerau J, Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, et al. : 99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2019; 148 (9): 1628–1639. Publisher Full Text Wang S: Emotional Intelligence, Information Elaboration, and Performance: The Moderating Role of Informational Diversity. Small Group Res. 2015; 46 (3): 324–351. Publisher Full Text Watts LL, Steele LM, Song H: Re-examining the Relationship Between Need for Cognition and Creativity: Predicting Creative Problem Solving Across Multiple Domains. Creat. Res. J. 2017; 29 (1): 21–28. Publisher Full Text Wiernik BM, Kostal JW: Protean and boundaryless career orientations: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Couns. Psychol. 2019; 66 (3): 280–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wiernik BM, Kostal JW, Wilmot MP, et al. : Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Size Variability in Meta-Analysis. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2017; 10 (3): 472–479. Publisher Full Text Wu C-H, Parker SK, de Jong JPJ : Need for Cognition as an Antecedent of Individual Innovation Behavior. J. Manag. 2014; 40 (6): 1511–1534. Publisher Full Text Yao X, Li R: Big five personality traits as predictors of employee creativity in probation and formal employment periods. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021; 182 : 109914. Publisher Full Text Zhang AY, Tsui AS, Wang DX: Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. Leadersh. Q. 2011; 22 (5): 851–862. Publisher Full Text Zhou J, George JM: When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice. Acad. Manag. J. 2001; 44 (4): 682–696. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 ERA chair of science and innovation Policy & Studies, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 6015, Cyprus 2 Department of Social Psychology, Aix-marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France 3 Department of Cognitive Psychology, Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France 4 Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA Adrien A. Fillon Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fabien Girandola Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nathalie Bonnardel Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Jared B. Kenworthy Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Lionel Souchet Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and innovation Programme under Grant Agreement number: 857636 — SInnoPSis — H2020-WIDESPREAD-2018-2020/H2020-WIDESPREAD-2018-04. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 07 Aug 2024, 13:904 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 Copyright © 2024 Fillon AA et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Fillon AA, Girandola F, Bonnardel N et al. Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145939.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Aug 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Coskun H. Reviewer Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r401455 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-401455 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Sep 2025 Hamit Coskun , Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r401455 This manuscript addresses an important gap in the literature by presenting one of the first meta-analyses on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity. The registered report format and the commitment to open science practices (e.g., sharing data and ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript addresses an important gap in the literature by presenting one of the first meta-analyses on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity. The registered report format and the commitment to open science practices (e.g., sharing data and analysis on OSF) are notable strengths that enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. That said, the meta-analysis is constrained by a relatively small number of included studies (n = 11, k = 72), which limits the robustness and generalizability of the findings. The reported effect sizes are mostly weak, and substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of creativity and personal factors across studies complicates the interpretation of results. A further methodological limitation is that many studies did not directly measure creativity, reducing the strength of the evidence base available for synthesis. Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution by highlighting methodological shortcomings in existing research and by calling for more systematic measurement approaches and broader datasets in future investigations. While the present findings should be interpreted with caution, the manuscript offers meaningful guidance for advancing research on group creativity and individual differences. Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)? Yes Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? Yes Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change? Yes Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative? Yes Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: group brainstorming, creativity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Coskun H. Reviewer Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r401455 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-401455 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rohrer J and Chambers CD. Reviewer Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r312033 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-312033 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Aug 2024 Julia Rohrer , Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik, Universitat Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany Christopher D. Chambers , School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r312033 What determines whether groups of people can come up with ideas that are both original and useful? Since the 1960s, this question has been intensively studied with the help of more or less structured group creativity activities such as brainstorming ... Continue reading READ ALL What determines whether groups of people can come up with ideas that are both original and useful? Since the 1960s, this question has been intensively studied with the help of more or less structured group creativity activities such as brainstorming or creative problem solving, with subsequent rating of the generated ideas. In this line of research, personal factors—such as personality traits, and other interindividual differences in emotion and cognition—have received substantial attention as potential correlates of creative outcomes of group activities. This has spawned a sprawling literature that, to date, has not yet been synthesized. Thus, empirical findings in this literature, which are also sometimes contradictory, have not yet been well-integrated. In the present study, Fillon et al. conducted the first meta-analysis of correlations between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. The authors searched and synthesized the existing published literature according to predetermined criteria to (1) assess the overall relationship between a broad list of personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings and (2) explore potential moderators of these relationships. In total, 11 studies could be included in the meta-analysis. They provided weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and the three investigated group creative outcomes, number of ideas, originality of ideas, and usefulness of ideas. With respect to moderators, many of the planned analyses could not be conducted due to the low number of studies. The only finding that arose was weak evidence for the idea that time constraint moderates associations: relationships between personal factors and group creativity outcomes were slightly stronger for tasks limited to 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes. Statistical power overall was low across studies. The authors conclude their meta-analysis with the observation that the available data on the topic are very limited. They suggest that to improve our knowledge of the topic, future studies should adhere to standardized creativity methods and protocols and implement expert ratings of creativity. They also call for increasing the availability of raw data in this field of study to improve the accumulation of knowledge about links between personal factors and the creative performance of groups. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review provided by the recommender and Chris Chambers, as the original reviewers were no longer available. Based on additional changes to the manuscript, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/nybg6 Level of bias control achieved: Level 3 . At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certified that had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence prior to IPA. Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)? Yes Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? Yes Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change? Yes Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative? Yes Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rohrer J and Chambers CD. Reviewer Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r312033 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-312033 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 1 07 Aug 24 read read Julia Rohrer , Universitat Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Christopher D. Chambers , Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Hamit Coskun , Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Coskun H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Sep 2025 | for Version 1 Hamit Coskun , Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Coskun H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This manuscript addresses an important gap in the literature by presenting one of the first meta-analyses on the relationship between personal factors and group creativity. The registered report format and the commitment to open science practices (e.g., sharing data and analysis on OSF) are notable strengths that enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. That said, the meta-analysis is constrained by a relatively small number of included studies (n = 11, k = 72), which limits the robustness and generalizability of the findings. The reported effect sizes are mostly weak, and substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of creativity and personal factors across studies complicates the interpretation of results. A further methodological limitation is that many studies did not directly measure creativity, reducing the strength of the evidence base available for synthesis. Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution by highlighting methodological shortcomings in existing research and by calling for more systematic measurement approaches and broader datasets in future investigations. While the present findings should be interpreted with caution, the manuscript offers meaningful guidance for advancing research on group creativity and individual differences. Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)? Yes Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? Yes Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change? Yes Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative? Yes Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise group brainstorming, creativity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Coskun H. Peer Review Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r401455) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-401455 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rohrer J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Aug 2024 | for Version 1 Julia Rohrer , Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik, Universitat Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany Christopher D. Chambers , School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rohrer J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions What determines whether groups of people can come up with ideas that are both original and useful? Since the 1960s, this question has been intensively studied with the help of more or less structured group creativity activities such as brainstorming or creative problem solving, with subsequent rating of the generated ideas. In this line of research, personal factors—such as personality traits, and other interindividual differences in emotion and cognition—have received substantial attention as potential correlates of creative outcomes of group activities. This has spawned a sprawling literature that, to date, has not yet been synthesized. Thus, empirical findings in this literature, which are also sometimes contradictory, have not yet been well-integrated. In the present study, Fillon et al. conducted the first meta-analysis of correlations between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. The authors searched and synthesized the existing published literature according to predetermined criteria to (1) assess the overall relationship between a broad list of personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings and (2) explore potential moderators of these relationships. In total, 11 studies could be included in the meta-analysis. They provided weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and the three investigated group creative outcomes, number of ideas, originality of ideas, and usefulness of ideas. With respect to moderators, many of the planned analyses could not be conducted due to the low number of studies. The only finding that arose was weak evidence for the idea that time constraint moderates associations: relationships between personal factors and group creativity outcomes were slightly stronger for tasks limited to 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes. Statistical power overall was low across studies. The authors conclude their meta-analysis with the observation that the available data on the topic are very limited. They suggest that to improve our knowledge of the topic, future studies should adhere to standardized creativity methods and protocols and implement expert ratings of creativity. They also call for increasing the availability of raw data in this field of study to improve the accumulation of knowledge about links between personal factors and the creative performance of groups. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review provided by the recommender and Chris Chambers, as the original reviewers were no longer available. Based on additional changes to the manuscript, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/nybg6 Level of bias control achieved: Level 3 . At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certified that had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence prior to IPA. Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)? Yes Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? Yes Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change? Yes Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative? Yes Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rohrer J and Chambers CD. Peer Review Report For: Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative outcomes: A correlational meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :904 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159962.r312033) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1#referee-response-312033 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Fillon AA et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904", templates : { twitter : "Stage 2 Registered Report Personal factors and group creative.... Fillon AA et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-904/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/145939/159962") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "159962"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "338052": 0, "381319": 0, "338049": 0, "338048": 0, "338051": 0, "338050": 0, "341900": 0, "341897": 0, "341896": 0, "341899": 0, "341898": 0, "322348": 0, "401454": 0, "322349": 0, "401455": 2, "322350": 0, "322351": 0, "330805": 0, "322356": 0, "401462": 0, "330804": 0, "322357": 0, "401463": 0, "333495": 0, "330807": 0, "401460": 0, "319287": 0, "330806": 0, "401461": 0, "322352": 0, "401458": 0, "322353": 0, "401459": 0, "330803": 0, "322354": 0, "401456": 0, "322355": 0, "401457": 0, "319292": 0, "333500": 0, "319293": 0, "330812": 0, "319294": 0, "319295": 0, "333497": 0, "319288": 0, "330809": 0, "333496": 0, "319289": 0, "330808": 0, "333499": 0, "319290": 0, "330811": 0, "319291": 0, "330810": 0, "333511": 0, "319296": 0, "333513": 0, "333512": 0, "333515": 0, "333514": 0, "312033": 16, "326127": 0, "326132": 0, "326133": 0, "326134": 0, "326135": 0, "326128": 0, "326129": 0, "326130": 0, "326131": 0, "338045": 0, "338044": 0, "338047": 0, "338046": 0, "326136": 0, "338043": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "500c028b-a2e9-4401-842a-01687cab4448"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });