Embracing Structure: Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing Structure in Organizations

Academy of Management Proceedings · 2025-07-01

Structure —explicit and predetermined rules, specificity, and order imposed to guide behavior—has long been recognized as a means of elevating outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations beyond default processes. Yet, structured tools are often underutilized in practice, raising critical questions: why are they resisted, and how can organizations encourage greater adoption? Addressing these challenges requires increasing awareness of their benefits and targeting psychological barriers to their use. The papers in this symposium tackle these issues in three ways. First, they highlight the limitations of default processes, demonstrating that humans underperform in detecting their partner’s conversational topic preferences compared to machine learning algorithms. Second, they illustrate the benefits of structure, showing how structured tools enhance conversational safety, promote equal speaking time in groups, and empower individuals to make voluntary choices during consent procedures. Third, they explore psychological barriers, such as concerns about enjoyment, that undermine the adoption of structured approaches. Collectively, this symposium showcases structure as a powerful tool for improving outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations, while emphasizing the importance of thoughtful design and implementation that accounts for individuals’ psychological needs and motivations. Topic preference detection: A novel approach to understand perspective taking in conversation Author: Michael Yeomans; Imperial College London Author: Alison Wood Brooks; Harvard Business School Unlocking the power of equal airtime: Nudging conversational safety in group conversations Author: F Katelynn Boland; Author: Nicholas Demetrio Zambrotta; UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business Author: Nicole Abi-Esber; London School of Economics and Political Science Structuring Requests to Empower Voluntary Consent Author: Rachel Schlund; Cornell University Author: Roseanna Sommers; Author: Vanessa Bohns; Cornell University Overcoming Resistance to Structured Collaboration: The Role of Hedonic Perceptions Author: Kelly Harrington; Northwestern University Author: Loran F. Nordgren;

Embracing Structure in Organizations: The Interplay Between Perceptions and Benefits of Structure

Academy of Management Proceedings · 2024-07-09

The idea that structure —explicit and predetermined rules that are imposed to guide behavior in situations and tasks— can elevate and improve performance is well established in the field of management. However, what is largely absent from the literature is an investigation of individuals’ perceptions and attitudes towards the structures that are often embedded in tasks and situations necessary for our work. As perceptions are consequential antecedents of behavior, how individuals perceive these structured devices may have important implications for the tasks and experiences they choose to engage in and support. The papers in this symposium build on prior work on the topic of structure by making three important contributions: 1) they begin to investigate how people perceive the impact of adding structure on enjoyment and effectiveness; 2) they demonstrate how structure can provide interpersonal benefits— topic preparation improves conversations and precommitment strategies facilitate the development of interpersonal trust; and 3) they show how structural attributions shape perceptions of others, the self, and support for policy. Ultimately, the work presented in this symposium highlights the power of perceptions and how they might hinder our ability to capitalize on the benefits that structure can confer in organizations and society. Structure—The Unwanted Ally: Perceptions and Preferences for Structured vs. Unstructured Tasks Author: Kelly Harrington; Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern U. Author: Loran F. Nordgren; Northwestern U. The Power of Forethought: Brainstorming Flexible Topics Improves Conversations Author: Nicole Abi-Esber; Harvard Business School Author: Alison Wood Brooks; Harvard U. Precommitment Allows Leaders to Maintain Trust When De-Escalating Commitment Author: Ariella Kristal; Harvard Business School Author: Charles Adam Dorison; - Who’s responsible? How structural attributions affect how we see ourselves and others Author: Sophia Pink; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania

Motivation Backfire: When Motivation Leads to Unexpected Organizational Outcomes

Academy of Management Proceedings · 2023-07-24

When leveraged correctly, motivation can be a powerful organizational tool. More motivated employees are likely to persist longer on tasks, (Bargh et al., 2001), pay more attention to details (Botvinick & Braver, 2015), and expend more effort (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987) than those who are less motivated. Organizations are also instrumental in designing motivational systems. For example, people were less motivated to volunteer when asked to volunteer for 200 hours, compared to when the same 200 hours was broken up over 4 hours per week or 8 hours every 2 weeks (Rai et al., 2022). While much research has examined the positive effects of motivation, there is also research suggesting that motivation can backfire. For example, highly motivated people are more likely to “choke under pressure” (Beilock & Gray, 2007) and offering money for prosocial behaviors can decrease their uptake (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000). Understanding the contexts in which motivation can lead to negative outcomes is a key organizational concern. In this symposium, we bring together leading and emerging scholars with the aim to answer three questions: (1) when does motivation lead to negative organizational outcomes, (2) are people’s expectations for motivation’s impact on organizational outcomes calibrated to reality, and (3) once these negative outcomes are anticipated, can interventions be designed to overcome them? Together, the papers in this symposium offer important empirical insights into how conventional wisdom about the effects of motivation can lead us astray. Practically, the collection of papers also provides managers and policymakers with insights as to how to design motivational systems that are consistent with their desired outcomes. Team Passion Peaks: The Double-Edge Sword of Momentarily High Team Passion Author: Anne Margit Reitsema; Harvard Business School Author: Kai Krautter; Harvard U. Author: Jon Michael Jachimowicz; Harvard Business School From Warm Glow to Cold Chill: The Effect of Choice Framing on Donation Interest Author: Ilana Brody; UCLA Anderson School of Management Author: Hengchen Dai; UCLA Anderson School of Management Author: Jana Gallus; UCLA Anderson School of Management Motivation Myopia: The Overestimation of Motivation’s Impact on Performance Author: Eliana Polimeni; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Author: Loran F. Nordgren; Northwestern U. Goal Fusion Increases Motivation Author: Jiabi Wang; U. of Chicago Booth School of business Author: Ayelet Fishbach; professor

The Easier-Is-Better Heuristic: The False Allure of Easy Work

Academy of Management Proceedings · 2022-07-06 · 1 citations

People are highly sensitive to effort expenditure and have an evolved goal to minimize it. As such, people tend to favor tasks that are easier over more difficult tasks. However, there are several downsides to reducing task demand, such as experiencing boredom, that make easier tasks less enjoyable. Across six studies, we examine people’s beliefs about the relationship between task demand and task enjoyment. We find that people inaccurately anticipate that making a task less demanding will increase its enjoyability (Study 1). We extend our findings to a more objective conceptualization of task demand (Study 2) and find that the effect persists even when tasks are familiar (Study 3). We test our proposed mechanism that people fail to consider other task dimensions that impact task enjoyment because effort avoidance is a highly salient goal (Study 4). In Study 5 we find that people accurately anticipate that challenging, yet attainable, tasks will be more enjoyable than tasks which exceed their abilities. Finally, in Study 6 we surveyed working professionals to test the implication of the effect on job satisfaction and retention. Taken together, these results suggest that people operate on an “easier-is- better” heuristic, meaning they believe that any decrease in task demand will lead to an increase in task enjoyment. These beliefs matter because they likely guide people’s decisions about what work to pursue and what work to avoid.

Beyond Sentiment: The Value and Measurement of Consumer Certainty in Language

Journal of Marketing Research · 2022-10-14 · 26 citations

Sentiment analysis has fundamentally changed marketers’ ability to assess consumer opinion. Indeed, the measurement of attitudes via natural language has influenced how marketing is practiced on a day-to-day basis. Yet recent findings suggest that sentiment analysis's current emphasis on measuring valence (i.e., positivity or negativity) can produce incomplete, inaccurate, and even misleading insights. Conceptually, the current work challenges sentiment analysis to move beyond valence. The authors identify the certainty or confidence of consumers’ sentiment as a particularly potent facet to assess. Empirically, they develop a new computational measure of certainty in language—the Certainty Lexicon—and validate its use with sentiment analysis. To construct and validate this measure, the authors use text from 11.6 million people who generated billions of words, millions of online reviews, and hundreds of thousands of entries in an online prediction market. Across social media data sets, in-lab experiments, and online reviews, the authors find that the Certainty Lexicon is more comprehensive, generalizable, and accurate in its measurement compared with other tools. The authors also demonstrate the value of measuring sentiment certainty for marketers: certainty predicted the real-world success of commercials where traditional sentiment analysis did not. The Certainty Lexicon is available at www.CertaintyLexicon.com .

Mass-scale emotionality reveals human behaviour and marketplace success

Nature Human Behaviour · 2021 · 49 citations

• Computer Science
• Psychology
• Social psychology

Lay people’s beliefs about creativity: evidence for an insight bias

Trends in Cognitive Sciences · 2021-10-19 · 15 citations

Research finds that creative ideas are generated by two cognitive pathways: insight and persistence. However, emerging research suggests people’s lay beliefs may not adequately reflect both routes. We propose that people exhibit an insight bias, such that they undervalue persistence and overvalue insight in the creative process. Research finds that creative ideas are generated by two cognitive pathways: insight and persistence. However, emerging research suggests people’s lay beliefs may not adequately reflect both routes. We propose that people exhibit an insight bias, such that they undervalue persistence and overvalue insight in the creative process. ‘Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something.’ – Steve Jobs‘Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.’ – Thomas EdisonCreative idea generationCreativity is the generation of ideas that are both novel and appropriate [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,2.Kaufman J.C. Sternberg R.J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, 2010Crossref Google Scholar] and it is the crucial first step of the broader creativity–innovation process, which also includes idea evaluation, selection, and the implementation of ideas into final products, solutions, or outcomes [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar]. For the past century, researchers have studied creativity with the goal of answering the question: how are creative ideas generated? More recently, researchers have begun to turn their attention to people’s beliefs about creativity. In other words, how do people think creative ideas are generated? Do people think, like Steve Jobs, that creativity is simply noticing things? Or, like Thomas Edison, do they think creativity requires effort and hard work? In this forum we describe recent research on people’s beliefs about how creativity works and examine why these beliefs matter.Research finds that creative ideas are often generated via two cognitive pathways: persistence and insight. Persistence refers to the effortful, deliberate, and sustained search for creative solutions [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar]. In contrast, insight refers to the effortless and unexpected comprehension of new ideas or solutions, colloquially called the ‘A-ha!’ moment [4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar,5.Schooler J.W. Melcher J. The ineffability of insight.in: Smith S.M. The Creative Cognition Approach. MIT Press, 1995: 97-133Google Scholar]. People report both pathways in their subjective experiences of creativity and both pathways promote creative performance [3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar,4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar]. Yet, emerging research suggests that people’s beliefs about the creative process do not reflect these dual pathways. It appears that people associate creativity with effortless insight and undervalue persistence; a phenomenon we refer to as an insight bias. We next present evidence for an insight bias, consider the mechanisms behind it, and discuss the implications of these (faulty) beliefs.From performance to perceptionWhat might an insight bias look like? We propose that an insight bias would be supported by evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity systematically mispredict creative performance such that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight.Initial evidence of an insight bias comes from research that compared people’s beliefs about the value of persistence for creativity against actual performance. After an initial period of idea generation, people predicted how many more ideas they would generate during a second round of idea generation and then they actually generated ideas a second time. This research found that people consistently underestimated how many ideas they would generate during the second round [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar]. That is, they underestimated the value of persisting. Building on this finding, other research investigated people’s beliefs about how creativity changes over time. People were asked to predict the trajectory of their creativity across an ideation session and then to actually complete the session. These studies found that whereas creativity actually increased or stayed the same across the session, people consistently predicted their creativity would decline [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Finally, problem solving research has found that people overestimate how quickly they exhaust a problem’s solution space (i.e., the set of reasonable solutions to a problem). In one study, people estimated that they generated 75% of the solution space when in fact their ideas covered only 20–30% [8.Gettys C.F. et al.An evaluation of human act generation performance.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1987; 39: 23-51Crossref Scopus (98) Google Scholar].Other research more directly compares beliefs about insight and persistence. For instance, people believe creative ideas are more likely to be produced by cognitive processes related to insight (e.g., cognitive flexibility) than processes related to persistence (e.g., deliberate, persistent thinking) [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. One study found that people believe creativity is stimulated more by defocusing (i.e., not working on the problem) than by focusing (i.e., deliberately working) on the task. However, when asked to recall and describe a recent idea generation experience, they reported the opposite: their idea was more often preceded by focusing than defocusing [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. The preference for insight resonates with research on beliefs about the origins of talent. This research finds that people favor entrepreneurs whose ideas stem from innate talents (e.g., from traits related to genius and insight) over entrepreneurs whose ideas result from effort and hard work. In one study, people even preferred an innately talented entrepreneur with fewer achievements over a hard-working entrepreneur with more achievements [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar].The studies summarized above provide evidence that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. Understanding these (faulty) beliefs is important because they how people to in creative work. For instance, persistence and ideas people to from creative more which creativity [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. insight people to more creativity when in the than [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar] and to the value of whose on persistence than innate genius [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google the insight One to the subjective of idea generation the of ideas called S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. ideas via insight and than ideas via persistence. This more of people to think and feel more about insight [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. For the research people underestimated how many ideas they would generate [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar] found that the of during initial idea generation for the and performance. people’s that creativity across an ideation session [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] was by people’s about the of ideas over time. research to this and other initial evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. We a of for research research to evidence for the insight bias. This studies that persistence and insight beliefs or to one also consequences of an insight bias such as how these beliefs or of other idea Finally, also the insight bias other of the creativity–innovation process such as how ideas are or for when people’s creativity beliefs from the of how creativity actually works of the creative process and promote creative for are beliefs related to the of more beliefs by cognitive or working beliefs an idea an idea via insight persistence people’s about their or beliefs of other an idea generated via insight persistence of the idea creativity or beliefs the of the creativity–innovation an idea was generated via insight persistence how the idea is or the that the idea is or ‘Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something.’ – Steve is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.’ – Thomas Creative idea generationCreativity is the generation of ideas that are both novel and appropriate [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,2.Kaufman J.C. Sternberg R.J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, 2010Crossref Google Scholar] and it is the crucial first step of the broader creativity–innovation process, which also includes idea evaluation, selection, and the implementation of ideas into final products, solutions, or outcomes [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar]. For the past century, researchers have studied creativity with the goal of answering the question: how are creative ideas generated? More recently, researchers have begun to turn their attention to people’s beliefs about creativity. In other words, how do people think creative ideas are generated? Do people think, like Steve Jobs, that creativity is simply noticing things? Or, like Thomas Edison, do they think creativity requires effort and hard work? In this forum we describe recent research on people’s beliefs about how creativity works and examine why these beliefs matter.Research finds that creative ideas are often generated via two cognitive pathways: persistence and insight. Persistence refers to the effortful, deliberate, and sustained search for creative solutions [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar]. In contrast, insight refers to the effortless and unexpected comprehension of new ideas or solutions, colloquially called the ‘A-ha!’ moment [4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar,5.Schooler J.W. Melcher J. The ineffability of insight.in: Smith S.M. The Creative Cognition Approach. MIT Press, 1995: 97-133Google Scholar]. People report both pathways in their subjective experiences of creativity and both pathways promote creative performance [3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar,4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar]. Yet, emerging research suggests that people’s beliefs about the creative process do not reflect these dual pathways. It appears that people associate creativity with effortless insight and undervalue persistence; a phenomenon we refer to as an insight bias. We next present evidence for an insight bias, consider the mechanisms behind it, and discuss the implications of these (faulty) is the generation of ideas that are both novel and appropriate [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,2.Kaufman J.C. Sternberg R.J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, 2010Crossref Google Scholar] and it is the crucial first step of the broader creativity–innovation process, which also includes idea evaluation, selection, and the implementation of ideas into final products, solutions, or outcomes [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar]. For the past century, researchers have studied creativity with the goal of answering the question: how are creative ideas generated? More recently, researchers have begun to turn their attention to people’s beliefs about creativity. In other words, how do people think creative ideas are generated? Do people think, like Steve Jobs, that creativity is simply noticing things? Or, like Thomas Edison, do they think creativity requires effort and hard work? In this forum we describe recent research on people’s beliefs about how creativity works and examine why these beliefs Research finds that creative ideas are often generated via two cognitive pathways: persistence and insight. Persistence refers to the effortful, deliberate, and sustained search for creative solutions [1.Amabile T.M. Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning.Res. Organ. Behav. 2016; 36: 157-183Crossref Scopus (502) Google Scholar,3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar]. In contrast, insight refers to the effortless and unexpected comprehension of new ideas or solutions, colloquially called the ‘A-ha!’ moment [4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar,5.Schooler J.W. Melcher J. The ineffability of insight.in: Smith S.M. The Creative Cognition Approach. MIT Press, 1995: 97-133Google Scholar]. People report both pathways in their subjective experiences of creativity and both pathways promote creative performance [3.Nijstad B.A. et al.The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2010; 21: 34-77Crossref Google Scholar,4.Kounios J. Beeman M. The aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18: 210-216Crossref Scopus (280) Google Scholar]. Yet, emerging research suggests that people’s beliefs about the creative process do not reflect these dual pathways. It appears that people associate creativity with effortless insight and undervalue persistence; a phenomenon we refer to as an insight bias. We next present evidence for an insight bias, consider the mechanisms behind it, and discuss the implications of these (faulty) performance to perceptionWhat might an insight bias look like? We propose that an insight bias would be supported by evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity systematically mispredict creative performance such that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight.Initial evidence of an insight bias comes from research that compared people’s beliefs about the value of persistence for creativity against actual performance. After an initial period of idea generation, people predicted how many more ideas they would generate during a second round of idea generation and then they actually generated ideas a second time. This research found that people consistently underestimated how many ideas they would generate during the second round [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar]. That is, they underestimated the value of persisting. Building on this finding, other research investigated people’s beliefs about how creativity changes over time. People were asked to predict the trajectory of their creativity across an ideation session and then to actually complete the session. These studies found that whereas creativity actually increased or stayed the same across the session, people consistently predicted their creativity would decline [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Finally, problem solving research has found that people overestimate how quickly they exhaust a problem’s solution space (i.e., the set of reasonable solutions to a problem). In one study, people estimated that they generated 75% of the solution space when in fact their ideas covered only 20–30% [8.Gettys C.F. et al.An evaluation of human act generation performance.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1987; 39: 23-51Crossref Scopus (98) Google Scholar].Other research more directly compares beliefs about insight and persistence. For instance, people believe creative ideas are more likely to be produced by cognitive processes related to insight (e.g., cognitive flexibility) than processes related to persistence (e.g., deliberate, persistent thinking) [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. One study found that people believe creativity is stimulated more by defocusing (i.e., not working on the problem) than by focusing (i.e., deliberately working) on the task. However, when asked to recall and describe a recent idea generation experience, they reported the opposite: their idea was more often preceded by focusing than defocusing [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. The preference for insight resonates with research on beliefs about the origins of talent. This research finds that people favor entrepreneurs whose ideas stem from innate talents (e.g., from traits related to genius and insight) over entrepreneurs whose ideas result from effort and hard work. In one study, people even preferred an innately talented entrepreneur with fewer achievements over a hard-working entrepreneur with more achievements [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar].The studies summarized above provide evidence that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. Understanding these (faulty) beliefs is important because they how people to in creative work. For instance, persistence and ideas people to from creative more which creativity [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. insight people to more creativity when in the than [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar] and to the value of whose on persistence than innate genius [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google the insight One to the subjective of idea generation the of ideas called S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. ideas via insight and than ideas via persistence. This more of people to think and feel more about insight [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. For the research people underestimated how many ideas they would generate [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar] found that the of during initial idea generation for the and performance. people’s that creativity across an ideation session [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] was by people’s about the of ideas over time. research to this and other might an insight bias look like? We propose that an insight bias would be supported by evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity systematically mispredict creative performance such that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. evidence of an insight bias comes from research that compared people’s beliefs about the value of persistence for creativity against actual performance. After an initial period of idea generation, people predicted how many more ideas they would generate during a second round of idea generation and then they actually generated ideas a second time. This research found that people consistently underestimated how many ideas they would generate during the second round [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar]. That is, they underestimated the value of persisting. Building on this finding, other research investigated people’s beliefs about how creativity changes over time. People were asked to predict the trajectory of their creativity across an ideation session and then to actually complete the session. These studies found that whereas creativity actually increased or stayed the same across the session, people consistently predicted their creativity would decline [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Finally, problem solving research has found that people overestimate how quickly they exhaust a problem’s solution space (i.e., the set of reasonable solutions to a problem). In one study, people estimated that they generated 75% of the solution space when in fact their ideas covered only 20–30% [8.Gettys C.F. et al.An evaluation of human act generation performance.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1987; 39: 23-51Crossref Scopus (98) Google Scholar]. research more directly compares beliefs about insight and persistence. For instance, people believe creative ideas are more likely to be produced by cognitive processes related to insight (e.g., cognitive flexibility) than processes related to persistence (e.g., deliberate, persistent thinking) [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. One study found that people believe creativity is stimulated more by defocusing (i.e., not working on the problem) than by focusing (i.e., deliberately working) on the task. However, when asked to recall and describe a recent idea generation experience, they reported the opposite: their idea was more often preceded by focusing than defocusing [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. The preference for insight resonates with research on beliefs about the origins of talent. This research finds that people favor entrepreneurs whose ideas stem from innate talents (e.g., from traits related to genius and insight) over entrepreneurs whose ideas result from effort and hard work. In one study, people even preferred an innately talented entrepreneur with fewer achievements over a hard-working entrepreneur with more achievements [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar]. The studies summarized above provide evidence that people undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. Understanding these (faulty) beliefs is important because they how people to in creative work. For instance, persistence and ideas people to from creative more which creativity [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. insight people to more creativity when in the than [9.Baas M. et al.Conceiving creativity: the nature and consequences of lay people’s beliefs about the realization of creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2015; 9: 340-354Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar] and to the value of whose on persistence than innate genius [10.Tsay C.J. Privileging naturals over strivers: the costs of the naturalness bias.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42: 40-53Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar]. the insight One to the subjective of idea generation the of ideas called S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. ideas via insight and than ideas via persistence. This more of people to think and feel more about insight [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google S. insight into the Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010; Scopus Google Scholar]. For the research people underestimated how many ideas they would generate [6.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 109: 232-243Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar] found that the of during initial idea generation for the and performance. people’s that creativity across an ideation session [7.Lucas B.J. Nordgren L.F. The creative cliff illusion.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117: 19830-19836Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] was by people’s about the of ideas over time. research to this and other initial evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. We a of for research research to evidence for the insight bias. This studies that persistence and insight beliefs or to one also consequences of an insight bias such as how these beliefs or of other idea Finally, also the insight bias other of the creativity–innovation process such as how ideas are or for when people’s creativity beliefs from the of how creativity actually works of the creative process and promote creative for are beliefs related to the of more beliefs by cognitive or working beliefs an idea an idea via insight persistence people’s about their or beliefs of other an idea generated via insight persistence of the idea creativity or beliefs the of the creativity–innovation an idea was generated via insight persistence how the idea is or the that the idea is or We initial evidence that people’s beliefs about creativity undervalue persistence and overvalue insight. We a of for research research to evidence for the insight bias. This studies that persistence and insight beliefs or to one also consequences of an insight bias such as how these beliefs or of other idea Finally, also the insight bias other of the creativity–innovation process such as how ideas are or for when people’s creativity beliefs from the of how creativity actually works of the creative process and promote creative performance. are beliefs related to the of more beliefs by cognitive or working beliefs an idea an idea via insight persistence people’s about their or beliefs of other an idea generated via insight persistence of the idea creativity or beliefs the of the creativity–innovation an idea was generated via insight persistence how the idea is or the that the idea is or are beliefs related to the of more beliefs by cognitive or working Do beliefs an idea an idea via insight persistence people’s about their or Do beliefs of other an idea generated via insight persistence of the idea creativity or Do beliefs the of the creativity–innovation an idea was generated via insight persistence how the idea is or the that the idea is or

Instrumental use erodes sacred values.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2021-01-21 · 19 citations

hypothesis. Following exposure to the instrumental use of a sacred value, observers held that value as less sacred (Studies 1-6), were less willing to donate to value-relevant causes (Studies 3 and 4), and demonstrated reduced tradeoff resistance (Study 7). We reconcile the current effect with previously documented value protection effects by suggesting that instrumental use decreases value sacredness by shifting descriptive norms regarding value use (Study 3), and by failing to elicit the same level of outrage as taboo tradeoffs, thus inhibiting value protective responses (Studies 4 and 5). These results have important implications: People and organizations that use values instrumentally may ultimately undermine the very values from which they intend to benefit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).