Cited by 61Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeAesthetic Perception and Analysis

Early and Repeated Exposure to Examples Improves Creative Work

Open access
Kulkarni, Chinmay, Dow, Steven P., Klemmer, Scott R·2014·Design Thinking Research

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_4

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulkarni, C., Dow, S. P., & Klemmer, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Kulkarni, Chinmay
Venue
Design Thinking Research
Published
2013-07-05
Pages
49-62
OpenAlex
W173591250
Cited by
61
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
25.26
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
creativity, repeated exposure, conformity, prototype development, creative work, animal drawing, alien planet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review