Logan L. Watts, Ph.D. Baruch College, CUNY Effects of idea source, goals, and climate on selecting and refining creative ideas Logan L. Watts, Ph.D. Baruch College, CUNY

Generation-Implementation Gap Historical focus on idea generation1 Creativity of ideas is positively related to number of ideas2 But, number of ideas is NOT related to creativity of ideas selected3 Question underlying present effort: What characteristics of an idea’s environment influence whether it is used for creative purposes? 1. Osborn (1957) 2. Mullen et al. (1991) 3. Rietzschell et al. (2006, 2010, 2014)

Creativity and Idea Selection Creativity refers to generating potentially viable solutions to complex, novel, ill-defined problems4 Idea selection is held to unfold in two phases5 Early screening phase  Refinement  Late screening phase The present study examines the early selection phase and refinement 4. Mumford & Gustafson (1988) 5. Kim & Wilemon (2003)

Creativity and Idea Refinement After passing the initial screening phase, ideas must usually be refined to result in creative solutions6, 7 Refinement processes are held to involve8: 1. Elaboration 2. Conceptual combination 3. Additional idea generation (late-stage) Thus, refinement consists of both evaluative and generative elements of creative thought9 6. Mobley et al. (1992) 7. Scott et al. (2005) 8. Mumford et al. (2003) 9. Basadur et al. (2000)

Self vs. Other Idea Source Perceptions about the source from which an idea originates (e.g., self vs. external) Personal investment in ideas  increased resources devoted to ideas  increased creativity12, 13 Hypothesis 1 Idea selection DV: Number of old concepts Prediction: Self-generate ideas  Review peer ideas Hypothesis 2 Idea refinement DVs: Number of new concepts, conceptual combination, and elaboration Prediction: Self-generate ideas > Review peer ideas 12. Illies & Reiter-Palmon (2004) 13. Runco & Smith (2012)

Originality vs. Quality Goals Creativity goals  selection of more novel ideas14 Focusing on originality  reduction of idea evaluation errors15 Idea source and goals may interact given that people appear to more accurately judge the originality of their own ideas and the quality of others’ ideas16 14. Rietzschel et al. (2010, 2014) 15. Licuanan et al. (2007) 16. Runco & Smith (1992)

Collaborative vs. Competitive Climate Climate refers to generally shared perceptions of the work environment17 Collaborative work climates are held to facilitate creativity whereas competitive climates are held to disrupt creativity18,19 Collaborative climates may provide the psychological safety needed to pursue more original, or high-risk, creative ideas20 17. Schneider (2000) 18. Shalley & Gilson (2004) 19. Hunter et al. (2007) 20. Baer & Frese (2003)

Final Hypotheses Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Idea refinement DVs: Number of new concepts, conceptual combination, and elaboration Prediction: Highest scores for self-generation x originality goals x collaborative climate Hypothesis 4 Creativity DVs: Quality, originality, and elegance

Design (2 x 2 x 2) Climate Idea Source Creativity Goals Competitive   Climate Competitive Collaborative Idea Source Self Creativity Goals Originality Quality Peers

Participants Recruitment procedures Sample characteristics Source: University subject pool Advertised online as a 2-hour study of complex problem solving Awarded class credit for participating Sample characteristics N = 178 undergraduates in Psychology 69% women Average age = 19 Average work experience = 2.5 years Average ACT = 26 (1 SD above national norms)

Procedures 1. Timed covariate measures 2. Experimental task Hired as new Director of Marketing at Charamousse Clothing21 Read background info about firm and target market Generate OR review a list of 9 ideas Critique ideas Formulate final advertising campaign 3. Untimed covariate measures 21. Gibson & Mumford (2013)

Manipulations Idea source Goals Climate Generate an initial list of 9 ideas OR review list of 9 peer ideas Peer ideas were randomly drawn from a pool of 27 low, medium, and high creativity ideas (each participant saw 3 of each) Goals Quality goals OR originality goals were explicitly embedded in two locations in the experimental task Climate Explicit references to a collaborative OR competitive work climate were embedded in two locations in the experimental task

Dependent Variables Ratings of final advertising campaigns Developed benchmark-rating scales Trained 3 judges to apply scales Dependent Variables rwg Number of old concepts .89 Number of new concepts .87 Conceptual combination .64 Elaboration .84 Quality .85 Originality .83 Elegance .81 Idea selection Idea refinement Creativity

Manipulation Checks & Controls Idea Source No differences were observed in the number or originality of ideas in initial lists between peer and self conditions However, the quality of initial lists was significantly different Quality of peer idea lists (M = 3.25, SE = .05) > self-generated idea lists (M = 3.07, SE = .05) Initial list quality included as a covariate in ANCOVAs Goals question = 84% correct Climate question = 73% correct

Number of Old Concepts df F p partial η2 Covariates* None significant Main Effects Idea Source 1, 162 0.03 .862 .00 Goals 3.85 .051 .02 Climate 0.22 .644 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 1.42 .235 .01 Idea Source X Climate 1.35 .247 Goals X Climate 0.34 .559 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 0.52 .470 Hypothesis 1 was not supported. No difference in number of old concepts selected due to idea source. Also there were no interactions among the three manipulations in predicting idea selection – answering our research question. Those given quality goals included more old concepts in their final campaigns. *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Number of New Concepts df F p partial η2 Covariates* None significant Main Effects Idea Source 1, 162 18.15 .000 .10 Goals 2.29 .133 .01 Climate 0.01 .906 .00 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 0.96 .329 Idea Source X Climate 0.62 .432 Goals X Climate 0.14 .712 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 0.59 .443 *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Number of New Concepts The opposite of what was predicted by hypothesis 2.

Conceptual Combination df F p partial η2 Covariates* Extraversion (-) 1, 162 7.96 .005 .05 Main Effects Idea Source 8.87 .003 Goals 0.47 .496 .00 Climate 0.60 .441 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 0.03 .873 Idea Source X Climate 0.01 .943 Goals X Climate 0.54 .462 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 1.82 .180 .01 *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Conceptual Combination Supports hypothesis 2.

Elaboration df F p partial η2 Covariates* Extraversion (-) 1, 162 7.60 .006 .05 Fluency (+) 5.16 .024 .03 Main Effects Idea Source 1.84 .177 .01 Goals 0.36 .547 .00 Climate 0.43 .515 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 4.23 .041 Idea Source X Climate 0.27 .606 Goals X Climate 0.11 .738 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 3.77 .054 .02 Note *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Elaboration Supports hypothesis 3.

Quality df F p partial η2 Covariates* Initial List Quality (+) 1, 162 8.62 .004 .05 Main Effects Idea Source 0.48 .490 .00 Goals 0.00 .974 Climate .950 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 0.14 .714 Idea Source X Climate 0.32 .572 Goals X Climate 0.02 .889 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 2.91 .090 .02 Near-significant 3-way interaction trending in support of hypothesis 4. *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Originality df F p partial η2 Covariates* Need for Cognition (+) 1, 162 4.49 .036 .03 Fluency (+) 5.75 .018 Main Effects Idea Source 6.32 .013 .04 Goals 1.44 .232 .01 Climate 0.43 .515 .00 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 1.37 .243 Idea Source X Climate 0.26 .610 Goals X Climate 0.11 .736 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 4.06 .046 .02 *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Originality Supports hypothesis 4.

Elegance df F p partial η2 Covariates* Intelligence (+) 1, 162 4.35 .039 .03 Main Effects Idea Source 5.08 .026 Goals 2.01 .158 .01 Climate 0.31 .576 .00 Two-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals 0.96 .328 Idea Source X Climate 0.99 .322 Goals X Climate 0.41 .525 Three-Way Interactions Idea Source X Goals X Climate 4.08 .045 Note *Note. Only significant covariates are listed to simplify table presentation.

Elegance Supports hypothesis 4.

Limitations Experimental design with undergraduate sample Artificially simulated social environment – participants worked alone and received no feedback

Discussion H1: not supported H2: mixed support The manipulations appeared to have no influence on selection of initial concepts H2: mixed support Participants who generated their own initial lists engaged in greater conceptual combination and elaboration Aligns well with personal investment explanation22 However, those who reviewed peer generated more new concepts for their final campaigns Could be because they had more resources available for late-stage idea generation23, 24 22. Illies & Reiter-Palmon (2004) 23. Basadur et al. (2000) 24. Medeiros et al. (2014)

Discussion H3: mixed support H4: supported 3-way interaction for elaboration, but not other refinement variables H4: supported Consistent pattern of 3-way interactions for quality, originality, and elegance Strongest creativity observed for those focusing on the originality of their own ideas in a collaborative climate

Conclusion Creativity scholars have historically ignored the gap between generation and implementation (i.e., the “idea journey”)25 The social environment appears to influence resources invested in idea refinement processes, as well the creativity of problem solutions Organizations may enhance creativity by designing work environments that incorporate… collaborative climate originality goals isolated, autonomous idea generation 25. Perry-Smith & Mannucci (2015)

Thank You! Questions?