Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2019, Vol. 27 Issue (4) : 571-586     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00571
Conceptual Framework |
Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition
BAI Xinwen1(),QI Shuting1,2,MING Xiaodong1,2,ZHOU Yiyong1,2,HUANG Mingquan1,2
1 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
2 Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Download: PDF(885 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

As one of the major limitations in organizational creativity and innovation research, much endeavor has been focused on idea generation rather than on idea recognition. Recognizing creative ideas among many options is the most crucial stage in the long process of organizational innovation, and contributes more to its success than generating ideas does. The critical role of decision maker’s mental model—the knowledge and belief structure that individuals use to describe, interpret, predict outside world, and to make judgment and decisions—on idea recognition has yet been examined. By adopting Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988, 1999) system view of creativity, the current study aims a) to demonstrate the difference in idea recognition accuracy between decision makers holding a fixed mindset or a growth mindset; b) to reveal the mediating effect of decision makers’ uncertainty tolerance decision makers; and c) to investigate the moderating effects of idea features and the pattern of organizational innovation practice. The current study contributes to organizational creativity and innovation literature by introducing a new perspective to this field. Also, decision makers can gain insight on how to avoid costly mistakes by reflecting on and modifying mental models of their own.

Keywords organizational creativity & innovation      decision makers      idea recognition      mental models      fixed/growth mindsets     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Xinwen BAI     E-mail: baixw@psych.ac.cn
Issue Date: 22 February 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Xinwen BAI
Shuting QI
Xiaodong MING
Yiyong ZHOU
Mingquan HUANG
Cite this article:   
Xinwen BAI,Shuting QI,Xiaodong MING, et al. Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(4): 571-586.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00571     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2019/V27/I4/571
  
固着型心智模式 成长型心智模式
基本假定和信念 人的特质固定不变 人的特质并非固定不变, 而是具有可塑性
特质与行为的关系 行为完全由特质所决定, 外在行为稳定反映人的内在特质, 因而通过观察外显行为可以对特质进行准确的判断 行为受内外部多种因素共同影响, 并随情境不同而变化。需经多方面持续观察一个人在不同时空下的行为表现, 才能对之形成准确判断
认知加工模式 快速的认知加工, 以尽早形成确定的认知和判断 动态的认知加工, 以彻底了解对象为目的
认知需要 低, 追求认知智力活动需要较低, 不追求全面了解事物 高, 积极追求高认知智力活动, 力求全面了解事物
认知闭合需要 强, 即力求达到对事物的确定和封闭的认识, 回避或消除认识上的含糊不确定性和开放状态 弱, 能够忍受事物的不确定性
不确定性容忍 低, 尽量回避任何不确定性, 倾向于维持熟悉的或已知的确定的认识状态 高, 积极探索新鲜事物, 接纳学习过程中的不确定性和未知状态
目标导向 绩效导向, 行动的主要目的是展现能力, 追求积极评价, 回避负性反馈 学习导向, 注重通过参与活动来学习和掌握新的知识或技能
对失败的态度 失败是因为能力差, 自己不可改变的能力导致, 无力克服困难, 倾向于无助性反应 坚持努力、认清导致挫折的具体原因, 以及寻求新的解决问题的策略
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
[1] 崔诣晨, 王沛, 谈晨皓 . ( 2016). 内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响. 心理学报, 48, (12), 1538-1550.
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90117X/201612/671128644.html
[2] 杨学儒, 李新春, 梁强, 李胜文 . ( 2011). 平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗? 管理工程学报, 25, (4), 17-25.
url: http://www.cqvip.com/qk/97777x/201104/40734232.html
[3] 吴梦, 白新文 . ( 2012). 动机性信息加工理论及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用. 心理科学进展, 20, (11), 1889-1898.
url: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XLXD201211022.htm
[4] Amabile T. M. ( 1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
[5] Anderson N., Potocnik K., & Zhou J . ( 2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, (5), 1297-1333.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-23154-003
[6] Baas M., Koch S., Nijstad B. A., & de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2015). Conceiving creativity: The nature and consequences of laypeople's beliefs about the realization of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 9, (3), 340-354.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/9/3/340/
[7] Baer M .( 2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, (5), 1102-1119.
[8] Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Day E. A., Hougen D. P., & Mumford M. D . ( 2013). Thinking about applications: Effects on mental models and creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 199-212.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2013.783758
[9] Benner M.J., &Tushman M. ( 2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, (4), 676-706.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/3094913
[10] Benner M.J., &Tushman M.L . ( 2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, (2), 238-256.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040711
[11] Berg J.M . ( 2016). Balancing on the creative high-wire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, (3), 433-468.
[12] Boudreau K., Guinan E. C., Lakhani K. R., & Riedl C . ( 2016). Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, 62, (10), 2765-2783.
pmid: 27746512 url: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC5062254/
[13] Chandy R., Hopstaken B., Narasimhan O., & Prabhu J . ( 2006). From invention to innovation: Conversion ability in product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, (3), 494-508.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162421
[14] Chiu C. Y., Hong Y. Y., & Dweck C. S . ( 1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, (1), 19-30.
[15] Criscuolo P., Dahlander L., Grohsjean T., & Salter A . ( 2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60, (2), 433-460.
[16] Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davisdon (Eds.), The nature of creativity: Comtemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Combridge Universtity Press.
[17] Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
[18] Dailey L &Mumford M.D . ( 2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 18, (3), 385-390.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_11
[19] Diedrich J., Benedek M., Jauk E., & Neubauer A. C . ( 2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, (1), 35-40.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/9/1/35/
[20] Dweck C.S . ( 2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York:Random House.
[21] Dweck C. S., Chiu C. Y., & Hong Y. Y . ( 1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, (4), 267-285.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
[22] Edwards J.R., &Lambert L.S . ( 2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, (1), 1-22.
pmid: 17402809 url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/met/12/1/1
[23] Elsbach K.D., &Kramer R.M . ( 2003). Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, (3), 283-301.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-06417-001
[24] Ford C., &Sullivan D.M . ( 2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, (2), 279-292.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.241/full
[25] Gralewski J., &Karwowski M. .( 2018). Are teachers' implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students' creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, (2), 156-167.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.140/abstract
[26] Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., & Shalley C. E . ( 2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, (4), 693-706.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12062-006
[27] Hayes A. F. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-21121-000
[28] He Z.L., &Wong P.K . ( 2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, (4), 481-494.
url: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1014473
[29] Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hougen D. P., Day E. A., & Mumford M. D . ( 2012). Causal analysis to enhance creative problem-solving: Performance and effects on mental models. Creativity Research Journal, 24, (2-3), 115-133.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2012.677249
[30] Hong Y., Chiu C., Dweck C. S., Lin D., & Wan W . ( 1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, (3), 588-599.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/77/3/588/
[31] Janssen O .( 2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, (5), 1039-1050.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069447
[32] Johnson-Laird P.N . ( 2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, (43), 18243-18250.
[33] Karwowski M . ( 2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, (1), 62-70.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/8/1/62/
[34] Kaufman J. C., Baer J., Cropley D. H., Reiter-Palmon R., & Sinnett S . ( 2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, (4), 332-340.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/7/4/332/
[35] Kickul J., &Gundry L.K . ( 2001). Breaking through boundaries for organizational innovation: New managerial roles and practices in e-commerce firms. Journal of Management, 27, (3), 347-361.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149206301000952
[36] Kornish L.J., &Ulrich K.T . ( 2014). The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the sow's ear hypothesis. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, (1), 14-26.
url: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035643
[37] Levy S.,R Plaks J. E.., & Dweck C. S .( 1999) . Modes of social thought: Implicit theories and social understanding In S Chaiken & Y Trope (Eds), Dual process theories in social psychology New York: Guilford Press Implicit theories and social understanding. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
[38] Lingo E.L., &O'Mahony S. ( 2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, (1), 47-81.
[39] Liu D., Gong Y. P., Zhou J., & Huang J. C . ( 2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60, (3), 1164-1188.
[40] Loewenstein J., &Mueller J.S . ( 2016). Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, (4), 320-348.
[41] Mainemelis C .( 2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35, (4), 558-578.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765005
[42] Mainemelis C., Kark R., & Epitropaki O . ( 2015). Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, (1), 393-482.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19416520.2015.1024502
[43] Molinsky A. L., Grant A. M., & Margolis J. D . ( 2012). The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, (1), 27-37.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812000672
[44] Mollick E . ( 2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, (9), 1001-1015.
url: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/dlo.2013.08127aaa.008
[45] Mueller J.S . ( 2017). Creative change: Why we resist it.. How we can embrace it. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
[46] Mueller J. S., Melwani S., & Goncalo J. A . ( 2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, (1), 13-17.
pmid: 22127366 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/22127366
[47] Mueller J. S., Melwani S., Loewenstein J., & Deal J. J . ( 2018). Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61, (1), 94-110.
[48] Mueller J. S., Wakslak C. J., & Krishnan V . ( 2014). Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 81-87.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103113001935
[49] Mumford M. D., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Peterson D. R., Day E. A., Hougen D. F., & Barrett J. D . ( 2012). Mental models and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24, (4), 311-330.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2012.730008
[50] O'Connor A. J., Nemeth C. J., & Akutsu S . ( 2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 155-162.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2013.783739
[51] Perry-Smith J.E., &Mannucci P.V . ( 2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42, (1), 53-79.
[52] Pirlott A.G., &MacKinnon D.P . ( 2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38.
pmid: 27570259 url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103115001225
[53] Puente-Diaz R., &Cavazos-Arroyo J. ( 2017). The influence of creative mindsets on achievement goals, enjoyment, creative self-efficacy and performance among business students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 1-11.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871187117300263
[54] Rafferty A.E., &Griffin M.A . ( 2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, (5), 1154-1162.
pmid: 16953776 url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/reference/PMED?id=16953776
[55] Rouse W.B., &Morris N.M . ( 1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, (3), 349-363.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/100/3/349/
[56] Scott S.G., &Bruce R.A . ( 1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, (3), 580-607.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-39388-001
[57] Shalley C. E., Zhou J., & Oldham G. R . ( 2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, (6), 933-958.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149206304000698
[58] Siler K., Lee K., & Bero L . ( 2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, (2), 360-365.
pmid: 25535380 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25535380
[59] Spencer S. J., Zanna M. P., & Fong G. T . ( 2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, (6), 845-851.
[60] Steele L. M., Johnson G., & Medeiros K. E . ( 2018). Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 21-29.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886917307420
[61] Stevens G.A., &Burley J. ( 1997). 3, 000 Raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Research Technology Management, 40, (3), 16-27.
[62] West M.A . ( 2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It’s team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology, 51, (3), 411-424.
[63] West M. A., & Sacramento C. A. .( 2012) . Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational climate In M D Mumford (Ed), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp 359-385) San Diego: Academic Press The role of team and organizational climate. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 359-385). San Diego: Academic Press.
[64] Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., & Griffin R. W . ( 1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, (2), 293-321.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258761
[65] Zhou J., &Hoever I.J . ( 2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333-359.
url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226
[66] Zhou J., Wang X. M., Song L. J., & Wu J . ( 2017). Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, (2), 180-202.
pmid: 27893257 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27893257
[1] YANG Jie;DENG Wei-Quan;CHENG Hao. Shared Mental Models of Collective Ball Sports Team: From Network and Evolution Perspective[J]. , 2012, 20(5): 641-650.
[2]

XUE Hui-Juan

. Shared Mental Models and Transactive Memory Systems: Antinomy or Synergy? —— From Knowledge Management Perspective
[J]. , 2010, 18(10): 1559-1566.
[3] Bai Xinwen,Wang Erping. Shared Mental Models: A Brief Introduction[J]. , 2004, 12(05): 791-799.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech