In today’s knowledge economy, effectively signaling one’s creative potential can be advantageous. Five experiments demonstrate that cues signaling a person’s separateness from others (as opposed to social connectedness) boost evaluations of their creative potential. “Lone” targets—engaging in activities alone—were judged more likely to generate creative ideas compared with targets engaging in identical activities with others. This effect was explained by perceived social independence and was unique to creativity judgments—our manipulation did not influence perceptions of other positive attributes, including ability to generate practical ideas (Studies 1a and 1b). The effect of social independence on perceived creativity was not reducible to perceived nonnormativity and was attenuated when creativity was construed as requiring convergent thinking rather than divergent thinking (Studies 2–4). Findings advance our understanding of how individuals of varying degrees of social connectedness tend to be viewed by others, providing insight into observers’ lay beliefs about creative potential.
AmabileT. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.
3.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). JAI Press.
4.
AmabileT. M.BarsadeS. G.MuellerJ. S.StawB. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403.
5.
BaerM. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592–601.
6.
BellezzaS.GinoF.KeinanA. (2013). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.
7.
BrooksA. W.HuangL.KearneyS. W.MurrayF. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4427–4431.
8.
BurtR. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373.
9.
CarsonS. (2011). The unleashed mind: Why creative people are eccentric. Scientific American Mind, 22(2), 22–29.
10.
CheekJ. M.BussA. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330–339.
11.
CohenS. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684.
12.
CooperC. (2018). The truth about Tesla: The myth of the lone genius in the history of innovation. Race Point Publishing.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.
15.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.
16.
ElsbachK. D.KramerR. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.
17.
FitzsimonsG. M.ChartrandT. L.FitzsimonsG. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: How Apple makes you “think different.”Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 21–35.
GoncaloJ. A.FlynnF. J.KimS. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1484–1495.
20.
GoncaloJ. A.StawB. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.
21.
GuilfordJ. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469–479.
22.
HassR. W. (2014). Domain-specific exemplars affect implicit theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 44–52.
23.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. Guilford Press.
24.
HennesseyB. A. (2000). Self-determination theory and the social psychology of creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 293–298.
25.
KanterR. M. (2010). Think outside the building. Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 44.
26.
KasofJ. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 311–366.
27.
KayM. B.ProudfootD.LarrickR. P. (2018). There’s no team in I: How observers perceive individual creativity in a team setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 432–442.
28.
LoewensteinJ.MuellerJ. (2016). Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 320–348.
29.
LombardoB. J.RoddyD. J. (2010). Cultivating organizational creativity in an age of complexity. A companion study to the IBM 2010 Global Chief Human Resource Officer Study. IBM Institute for Business Value.
30.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
31.
McCraeR. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.
32.
MillerG. (2011). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Anchor.
33.
MuellerJ.MelwaniS.LoewensteinJ.DealJ. J. (2018). Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 94–110.
34.
MullenB.JohnsonC.SalasE. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.
35.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
36.
PaletzS. B.PengK.LiS. (2011). In the world or in the head: External and internal implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 83–98.
37.
Perry-SmithJ. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101.
38.
PowellW. W.SnellmanK. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 199–220.
ProudfootD.KayA. C.KovalC. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Science, 26, 1751–1761.
SinghJ.FlemingL. (2010). Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality?Management Science, 56(1), 41–56.
46.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.
47.
TriandisH. C.GelfandM. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.
YangY. C.BoenC.GerkenK.LiT.SchorppK.HarrisK. M. (2016). Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 578–583.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
