Errors in Idea Evaluation: Preference for the Unoriginal?

Abstract

Abstract Idea evaluation has, in recent years, received more attention as a critical component of creative thought. One key influence on how people evaluate new ideas may be found in the standards, or attributes, people look for in appraising ideas. The intent of the present study was to examine the influence of different attributes on people's willingness to support new ideas. Initially undergraduates were asked to generate ideas that might be funded by a foundation. Based on this material, ideas displaying different attributes were identified. Another smaller sample of undergraduates were asked to evaluate ideas for funding by the foundation. It was found that people preferred ideas that were easy to understand, provided short‐term benefits to many, and were consistent with prevailing social norms, while disregarding risky, time consuming, and original ideas. Original and risky ideas, however, were more likely to be preferred when evaluation criteria were not especially stringent and time pressure was high. The implications of these findings for understanding how people go about evaluating new ideas are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 206 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.