1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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

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

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

18. Conceptual Combinationdf 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.

19. Conceptual Combination
Supports hypothesis 2.

20. 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.

21. Elaboration
Supports hypothesis 3.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Originality
Supports hypothesis 4.

25. 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.

26. Elegance
Supports hypothesis 4.

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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. 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)

31. Thank You!
Questions?