This article examines the popular marketing practice of interdependent ideation, whereby firms solicit ideas from customers through online platforms that enable customers to be exposed to or “inspired” by other customers’ ideas when generating their own. Although being exposed to others’ ideas means that customers are “connected” (at least implicitly) in a communication network that facilities the flow of ideas, the effect of network structure on individual innovativeness has not been considered in this context. The authors examine how, when, and why network structure—specifically, the clustering, or interconnectivity, of one's “inspirations” (other customers)—affects the innovativeness of individual customers’ product/service ideas in ideation tasks. Across five experiments, the authors show that (1) higher clustering/interconnectivity negatively affects the innovativeness of a customer's ideas; (2) this effect occurs because idea inspirations are more likely to be similar or redundant when their sources (i.e., other customers to which one is connected) are clustered; (3) greater redundancy among ideas used as inspirations is what causes lower innovativeness; and (4) this effect is attenuated when customers do not rely on other customers’ ideas for inspiration.
AmabileTeresa M. (1983), “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357–76.
2.
AmabileTeresa M. (1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, StawBarry M. and CummingsLarry L., eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 123–67.
3.
AmabileTeresa M. (1996), Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
4.
BavelasAlex (1950), “Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups,”Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22 (6), 725–30.
5.
BayusBarry L. (2013), “Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell Ideastorm Community,”Management Science, 59 (1), 226–44.
6.
BirdSteven, EdwardLoper, and EwanKlein (2009), Natural Language Processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
7.
BurroughsJames E., MoreauC. Page, and MickDavid Glen (2008), “Toward a Psychology of Consumer Creativity,” in Handbook of Consumer Psychology, HaugtvedtCurtis P., HerrPaul M., and KardesFrank R., eds. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
BurroughsJames E., DahlDarren W., MoreauC. Page, ChattopadhyayAmitava, and GornGerald J. (2011), “Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development,”Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 53–67.
9.
BurtRonald S. (2004), “Structural Holes and Good Ideas,”American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349–99.
10.
BurtRonald S. (2005), Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
ClemenRobert T. and WinklerRobert L. (1985), “Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources,”Operations Research, 33 (2), 427–42.
12.
CooperRobert G. (1990), “Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products,”Business Horizons, 33 (3), 44–54.
13.
DahanEly and HauserJohn R. (2002), “Product Development: Managing a Dispersed Process,” in Handbook of Marketing, BartonWeitz and RobinWensley, eds. London: Sage Publications, 179–222.
14.
DahlDarren W. and MoreauC. Page (2002), “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 47–60.
15.
DennisAlan R. and ValacichJoseph S. (1993), “Computer Brainstorms: More Heads Are Better Than One,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 531–37.
16.
DiehlMichael and StroebeWolfgang (1987), “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 497–509.
17.
DugoshKaren Legget, PaulusPaul B., RolandEvelyn J., and YangHuei-Chuan (2000), “Cognitive Stimulation in Brainstorming,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 722–35.
18.
FlemingLee, MingoSantiago, and ChenDavid (2007), “Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3), 443–75.
19.
FlemingLee and SzigetyMark (2006), “Exploring the Tail of Creativity: An Evolutionary Model of Breakthrough Invention,” in Ecology and Strategy, BaumJoel A.C.DobrevStanislav D., and Arjen Van Witteloostuijn, eds. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 335–59.
GallupeR. Brent, DennisAlan R., CooperWilliam H., ValacichJoseph S., BastianuttiLana M., and NunamakerJay F.Jr. (1992), “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size,”Academy of Management Journal, 35 (2), 350–69.
22.
GoldenbergJacob, HanSangman, LehmannDonald R., and HongJae Weon (2009), “The Role of Hubs in the Adoption Process,”Journal of Marketing, 73 (April), 1–13.
23.
GoldenbergJacob, LehmannDonald R., and MazurskyDavid (2001), “The Idea itself and the Circumstances of Its Emergence as Predictors of New Product Success,”Management Science, 47 (1), 69–84.
24.
GoldenbergJacob, MazurskyDavid, and SolomonSorin (1999a), “Creative Sparks,”Science, 285 (5433), 1495–96.
25.
GoldenbergJacob, MazurskyDavid, and SolomonSorin (1999b), “Toward Identifying the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 200–210.
26.
HargadonAndrew B. and SuttonRobert I. (1997), “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Design Firm,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4), 716–49.
27.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
28.
HuangYan, SinghParam Vir, and SrinivasanKannan (2014), “Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning,”Management Science, 60 (9), 2138–59.
29.
KleinbaumAdam M. (2012), “Organizational Misfits and the Origins of Brokerage in Intrafirm Networks,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (3), 407–52.
30.
KohnNicholas W., PaulusPaul B., and ChoiYunHee (2011), “Building on the Ideas of Others: An Examination of the Idea Combination Process,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (3), 554–61.
31.
KohnNicholas W. and SmithSteven M. (2011), “Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming,”Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 (3), 359–71.
32.
KornishLaura J. and UlrichKarl T. (2014), “The Importance of the Raw Idea in Innovation: Testing the Sow's Ear Hypothesis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (February), 14–26.
33.
LammHelmut and TrommsdorffGisela (2006), “Group Versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming): A Review,”European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 (4), 361–88.
34.
LevineSheen S. and PrietulaMichael J. (2013), “The Hazards of Interaction: Why Isolation Can Benefit Performance,”Academy of Management Proceedings2013 (1), 10736.
35.
ManskiCharles F. (1993), “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem,”Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–42.
36.
MarshRichard L. and LandauJoshua D. (1995), “Item Availability in Cryptomnesia: Assessing Its Role in Two Paradigms of Unconscious Plagiarism,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21 (6), 1568–82.
37.
MasonWinter A., JonesAndy, and GoldstoneRobert L. (2008), “Propagation of Innovations in Networked Groups,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137 (3), 422–33.
38.
MasonWinter A. and WattsDuncan J. (2012), “Collaborative Learning in Networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (3), 764–69.
39.
MoreauC. Page and DahlDarren W. (2005), “Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 13–22.
40.
MullenBrian, JohnsonCraig, and SalasEduardo (1991), “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration,”Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12 (1), 3–23.
41.
NijstadBernard A. and StroebeWolfgang (2006), “How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups,”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (3), 186–213.
42.
NijstadBernard A., StroebeWolfgang, and LodewijkxHein F.M. (2002), “Cognitive Stimulation and Interference in Groups: Exposure Effects in an Idea Generation Task,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (6), 535–44.
43.
PanWei, AltshulerYaniv, and “Sandy” PentlandAlex (2012), “Decoding Social Influence and the Wisdom of the Crowd in Financial Trading Network,” in Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) 2012: International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 203– 09.
44.
PaulusPaul B., KohnNicholas W., ArdittiLauren E., and KordeRuna M. (2013), “Understanding the Group Size Effect in Electronic Brainstorming,”Small Group Research, 44(3), 332–52.
45.
PaulusPaul B., PutmanVicky L., DugoshKaren Leggett, DzindoletMary T., and CoskunHamit (2002), “Social and Cognitive Influences in Group Brainstorming: Predicting Production Gains and Losses,”European Review of Social Psychology, 12 (1), 299–325.
46.
PentlandAlex “Sandy” (2013), “Beyond the Echo Chamber,”Harvard Business Review, 91 (11), 80–86.
47.
Perry-SmithJill E. (2006), “Social Yet Creative: The Role of Social Relationships in Facilitating Individual Creativity,”Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 85–101.
48.
Perry-SmithJill E. and ShalleyChristina E. (2003), “The Social Side of Creativity: A Static and Dynamic Social Network Perspective,”Academy of Management Review, 28 (1), 89–106.
49.
PinsonneaultAlain, BarkiHenri, GallupeR. Brent, and HoppenNorberto (1999), “Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity,”Information Systems Research, 10 (2), 110–33.
50.
SimontonDean Keith (2003), “Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person, and Process Perspectives,”Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 475–94.
51.
SmithPreston and ReinertsenDonald (1992), “Shortening the Product Development Cycle,”Research-Technology Management, 35 (3), 44–49.
52.
SmithSteven M., WardThomas B., and SchumacherJay S. (1993), “Constraining Effects of Examples in a Creative Generation Task,”Memory & Cognition, 21 (6), 837–45.
53.
TortorielloMarco and KrackhardtDavid (2010), “Activating Cross-Boundary Knowledge: The Role of Simmelian Ties in the Generation of Innovations,”Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1), 167–81.
UganderJohan, KarrerBrian, BackstromLars, and MarlowCameron (2011), “The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph,” (November 19), (accessed February 4, 2016), [available at arXiv:1111.4503v1].
56.
UrbanGlen L. and HauserJohn R. (1993), Design and Marketing of New Products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
57.
ValacichJoseph S., DennisAlan R., and ConnollyTerry (1994), “Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57 (3), 448–67.
58.
WardT.B. (1994), “Structured Imagination: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Exemplar Generation,”Cognitive Psychology, 27 (1), 1–40.
59.
WattsDuncan J. (2002), “A Simple Model of Global Cascades on Random Networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (9), 5766–71.
60.
WinsorJohn (2009), “Crowdsourcing: What It Means for Innovation,”BusinessWeek, (June), 15.
61.
YangHaiyang, ChattopadhyayAmitava, ZhangKuangjie, and DahlDarren W. (2012), “Unconscious Creativity: When Can Unconscious Thought Outperform Conscious Thought?”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (4), 573–81.
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.
