Comment les consommateurs peuvent-ils émettre de meilleures idées de nouveaux produits ou services par la pensée analogique ? Cette méthode de créativité se décompose en deux phases : l’identification de domaines sources et le transfert d’informations de ces domaines vers le domaine cible. La littérature s’est focalisée sur l’influence de la distance du transfert entre domaines source et cible et aucune étude n’a examiné comment cette distance interagit avec le contenu du transfert. Dans deux expérimentations, nous montrons que l’attractivité des idées émises dépend, non seulement du niveau d’adéquation entre contenu et distance du transfert, mais également du niveau d’expertise des consommateurs dans le domaine cible.
AdamczykSBullingerACMösleinKM (2012) Innovation contests: A review, classification and outlook. Creativity and Innovation Management21(4): 335–360.
2.
AlterALOppenheimerDM (2008) Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science19(2): 161–67.
3.
AlbaJWHutchinsonJW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research13(4): 411–454.
4.
AndrewsJSmithDC (1996) In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research33(2): 174–187.
5.
BarczakGGriffinAKahnKB (2009) Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management26(1): 3–23.
6.
BergkvistL (2015) Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay. Marketing Letters26(3): 245–255.
7.
BoltonLE (2003) Stickier priors: The effects of nonanalytic versus analytic thinking in new product forecasting. Journal of Marketing Research40(1): 65–79.
8.
BonnardelNMarmècheE (2004) Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management13(3): 176–186.
9.
BrabhamDC (2012) The myth of amateur crowds. Information, Communication & Society15(3): 394−410.
10.
BurroughsJEDahlDWMoreauCPChattopadhyayAGornGJ (2011) Facilitating and rewarding creativity during new product development. Journal of Marketing75(July): 53–67.
11.
BurroughsJEMickDG (2004) Exploring antecedents and consequences of consumer creativity in a problem-solving context. Journal of Consumer Research31(2): 402–411.
12.
CarlsonJPVincentLHHardestyDMBeardenWO (2009) Objective and subjective knowledge relationships: A quantitative analysis of consumer research findings. Journal of Consumer Research35(5): 864–876.
13.
CastellionGMarkhamSK (2013) Perspectives: New product failure rates: Influence of argumemtum ad populum self-interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(5): 976–979.
14.
ChanJSchunnC (2015) The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science39(1): 126–155.
15.
CubukcuECetintahraGE (2010) Does analogical reasoning with visual clues affect novice and experienced design students’ creativity?Creativity Research Journal22(3): 337–344.
16.
DahlDWChattopadhyayAGornGJ (1999) The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research36(1): 18–28.
17.
DahlDWMoreauP (2002) The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research39(1): 47–60.
18.
DellaertBGCStremerschS (2005) Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research42(2): 219–227.
19.
EbnerWLeimeisterJMKrcmarH (2009) Community engineering for innovations: The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management39(4): 342–356.
20.
FinkeRA (1995) Creative insight and preinventive forms. In SternbergRJDavidsonJE (éds) The Nature of InsightCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 255–280.
21.
FrankeNPoetzMKSchreierM (2014) Integrating problem solvers from analogous markets in new product ideation. Management Science60(4): 1063–1081.
22.
GassmannOZeschkyM (2008) Opening up the solution space: The role of analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management17(2): 97–106.
23.
GatignonHGottelandDHaonC (2015) Making Innovation Last: Sustainable strategies for longterm growth, 2 volumes, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
GentnerD (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science7: 155–170.
25.
GoldenbergJMazurskyD (2002) Creativity in Product Innovation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GoldenbergJMazurskyDSolomonS (1999) Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research36(2): 200–210.
27.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
28.
HenderJMDeanDLRodgersTLNunamakerJFJr (2002) An examination of the impact of stimuli type and GSS structure on creativity: Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a GSS environment. Journal of Management Information Systems18(4): 59–85.
29.
HirschmanEC (1980) Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research7(3): 283–295.
30.
HirschmanEC (1983) Consumer intelligence, creativity, and consciousness: Implications for consumer protection and education. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing2(1): 153–170.
31.
KalogerakisKLüthjeCHerstattC (2010) Developing innovations based on analogies: Experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management27: 418–436.
32.
KwonJLeeMKimHR (2015) Does a creative designer necessarily translate into the creative design of a product? Exploring factors facilitating the creativity of a new product. Creativity and Innovation Management24(4): 675–692.
33.
LuoLToubiaO (2015) Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure on the basis of consumers’ domain-specific knowledge. Journal of Marketing79(5): 100–114.
34.
LloydGER (1966) Polarity and Analogy, Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MagnussonPR (2009) Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services. Journal of Product Innovation Management26(5): 578–593.
36.
MehtaRZhuRCheemaA (2012) Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research39(4): 784–799.
37.
MoreauCPDahlDW (2005) Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research32(1): 13–22.
38.
NovickLR (1988) Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14(3): 510–520.
39.
OswickCKeenoyTGrantD (2002) Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review27(2): 294–303.
40.
PerfettoGABransfordJDFranksJJ (1983). Constraints on access in a problem solving context. Memory & Cognition11: 24–31.
41.
RatchfordBT (2001) The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research27(4): 397–411.
42.
RenaultS (2016) Quand les créatifs contestent le crowdsourcing : une approche netnographique. Décisions Marketing81(janvier-mars): 131–150.
43.
RoehmMLSternthalB (2001) The moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies. Journal of Consumer Research28(2): 257–272.
44.
SagivLArieliSGoldenbergJGoldschmidtA (2010) Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style. Journal Of Organizational Behavior31(8): 1086–1110.
45.
ScottSBruceR (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal37(3): 580–607.
46.
SethiRSmithDCParkCW (2001) Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research38(1): 73–85.
47.
SmithSM (1995) Fixation, incubation and insight in memory and creative thinking., In: SmithSMWardTBFinkeRA (éd.) The Creative Cognition ApproachCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 135–156.
48.
SpillerSAFitzsimonsGJLynchJGMcClellandGH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research50(2): 277–288.
49.
StephenAZubcsekPPGoldenbergJ (2015) People offer better ides when they can’t see what others suggest. Harvard Business Review disponible en ligne: http://bit.ly/1LLpzQn.
50.
ToubiaO (2006) Idea generation, creativity, and incentives. Marketing Science25(5): 411–425.
51.
TerwieschCXuY (2008) Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science54(9): 1529–1543.
52.
TsaiCIThomasM (2011) When does feeling of fluency matter? How abstract and concrete thinking influence fluency effects. Psychological Science22(3): 348–354.
53.
von HippelE (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science32(7): 791–805.
54.
WardTB (1995) What’s old about new ideas? In : SmithSMWardTBFinkeRA (éd.) The Creative Cognition Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157–178.
55.
WileyJ (1998) Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem Solving. Memory & Cognition26(4): 716–30.
56.
WindJMahajanV (1997) Issues and opportunities in new product development: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research34(1): 1–12.
