Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas

By B. Licuanan, Lesley R. Dailey, Michael D. Mumford. 2007

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/51382c40243350bcece561eea5cd379ef36e615e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Selcuk Acar
2. Justin M. Berg

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Selcuk Acar
2. Mark A. Runco
3. Justin M. Berg
4. Paul J Silvia
5. Maciej Karwowski
6. V. Glăveanu
7. R. Beghetto
8. Giovanni Emanuele Corazza

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Justin M. Berg

Citations in the corpus

• Balancing on the Creative Highwire (2016, background): “Much of the prior research related to creative forecasting has focused on individuals’ accuracy in assessing the novelty, but not the ultimate market success, of new ideas (e.g., Runco and Smith, 1992; Basadur, Runco, and Vega, 2000; Licuanan, Dailey, and Mumford, 2007; Silvia, 2008).”
• Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential (2012, background): “Licuanan, Dailey, and Mumford (2007) detected the errors in evaluation of ideas in cases of high versus low originality, high versus low complexity, employment of active processing, and creativity framing.”