Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments

By Kimberly D. Elsbach, Roderick M. Kramer. 2003

384 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0ed4e8458a3f78105600d5b8306291fce38386b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Resources and Relationships in Entrepreneurship: An Exchange Theory of the Development and Effects of the Entrepreneur-Investor Relationship (2017, background): “…direct effects that contribute to initial positive affect, interpersonal signaling behavior also has important symbolic content (Zott & Huy, 2007) that can trigger different relational prototypes—expectations about how two people will interact and work with one another (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).”
Cultural Industries: Product–Market Characteristics, Management Challenges and Industry Dynamics (2015, neutral): “According to studies with fieldwork from selection meetings, selections are made on the basis of an artist conforming to a genre, not imitating other artists, having a good reputation (Mauws 2000), and conforming to a creative prototype (Elsbach and Kramer 2003).”
THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED ENTREPRENEURIAL PASSION ON ANGEL INVESTING (2009, background): “Similarly, Elsbach and Kramer (2003) found that when unknown screenwriters pitched ideas for shows to studio producers, the producers categorized the presenters based on their level of passion in order to assess their creative potential, including the ability to adapt and innovate, versus…”
Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review ☆ (2017, background): “…lead to decreased performance (e.g., Steele, 1997), decreased desire to take future leadership roles (e.g., Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005), deliberate attempts to block organizational change (e.g., Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007) and non-conformance with company rules (e.g., Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).”
Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas (2014, background): “However, because creative ideas are new – and it is not possible to know with certainty whether any new idea is truly valuable and appropriate (Amabile, 1988; Elsbach & Kramer, 2003) – people may employ cues beyond domain knowledge to determine whether ideas fit the category of being truly creative.”
The Use of Signals in New-Venture Financing: A Review and Research Agenda (2021, background): “Consequently, prospective investors’ evaluations may primarily be based on subjective, nonverifiable claims made by the entrepreneur (Maxwell, Jeffrey, & Lévesque, 2011) before more reliable reputation- or market-related information becomes available (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).”
The Pivot: How Founders Respond to Feedback through Idea and Identity Work (2017, background): “First, audiences are prone to evaluate and categorize not only creative ideas or prototypes, but also the creative potential of those who generate them (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Stevens & Kristof, 1995).”
Stealing Fire: Creative Deviance in the Evolution of New Ideas (2010, background): “…their degree of risk (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001), clarity (Ford, 1996), framing and fit with organizational habits of thought and action (Dougherty & Heller, 1994), the political support they generate (Staw, 1990), and/or their effective use of impression management techniques (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).”
Marks of Distinction (2015, background): “Extensive evidence suggests that framing shapes audiences’ evaluations (e.g., Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Elsbach and Kramer, 2003; Fiss and Zajac, 2006; Martens, Jennings, and Jennings, 2007), but most current research overlooks the context in which audience members receive, interpret, and evaluate ”