Idea Generation, Creativity, and Prototypicality

References

• Anderson JR (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22(3):261–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Attali Y, Burstein J (2006) Automated essay scoring with e-rater v.2. J. Tech., Learn., Assessment 4(3).Google Scholar
• Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2004) The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(11):3747–3752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Machine Learn. 3:993–1022.Google Scholar
• Burroughs JE, Moreau CP, Mick DG (2008) Toward a psychology of consumer creativity. Haugtvegt CP, Herr PM, Kardes FR, eds. Handbook of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York), 1011–1038.Google Scholar
• Callon M, Law J, Rip A (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World (Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psych. Rev. 82(6):407–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahl DW, Moreau P (2002) The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. J. Marketing Res. 39(1):47–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bono E (1992) Serious Creativity (HarperCollins, New York).Google Scholar
• Eliashberg J, Hui SK, Zhang ZJ (2007) From story line to box office: A new approach for green-lighting movie scripts. Management Sci. 53(6):881–893.Link, Google Scholar
• Feinerer I, Hornik K, Meyer D (2008) Text mining infrastructure in R. J. Statist. Software 25(5):1–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldman R, Sanger J (2007) The Text Mining Handbook (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Feldman R, Fresko M, Kinar Y, Lindell Y, Liphstat O, Rajman M, Schler Y, Zamir O (1998) Text mining at the term level. Proc. Second Eur. Sympos. Principles Data Mining Knowledge Discovery (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), 65–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (1992) Creative Cognition (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Giora R (2003) On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldenberg J, Mazursky D (2002) Creativity in Product Innovation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comparative Psych. 108(3):233–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halberstadt J, Rhodes G (2003) It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 10(1):149–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kornish L, Ulrich K (2011) Opportunity spaces in innovation: Empirical analysis of large samples of ideas. Management Sci. 57(1):107–128.Link, Google Scholar
• Kostoff RN (2006) Systematic acceleration of radical discovery and innovation in science and technology. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 73(8):923–936.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landauer T, Laham D, Foltz P (2003) Automated essay assessment. Assessment Ed. Principles Policy Practice 10(3):295–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landwehr JR, Labroo AA, Herrmann A (2011) Gut liking for the ordinary: Incorporating design fluency improves automobile sales forecasts. Marketing Sci. 30(3):416–429.Link, Google Scholar
• Langlois JH, Roggman LA (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psych. Sci. 1(2):115–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo L, Toubia O (2015) Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure based on consumers’ domain specific knowledge. J. Marketing 79(5):100–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schűtze H (2008) An Introduction to Information Retrieval (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martindale C, Moore K, Borkum J (1990) Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. Amer. J. Psych. 103(1):53–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martindale C, Moore K, West A (1988) Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Stud. Arts 6(1):79–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mednick SA (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psych. Rev. 69(3):220–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreau CP, Dahl DW (2005) Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. J. Consumer Res. 32(1):13–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer O, Feldman R, Goldenberg J, Fresko M (2012) Mine your own business: Market-structure surveillance through text mining. Marketing Sci. 31(3):521–543.Link, Google Scholar
• Nijstad BA, Stroebe W (2006) How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 10(3):186–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nijstad BA, Stroebe W, Lodewijkx HFM (2003) Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 39(6):531–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oestreicher-Singer G, Libai B, Sivan L, Carmi E, Yassin O (2013) The network value of products. J. Marketing 77(3):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perkins DN (1981) The Mind’s Best Work (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter MF (1980) An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3):130–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 8(4):364–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Repp BH (1997) The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception 14(4):419–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothenberg A (2014) Flight from Wonder—An Investigation of Scientific Creativity (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salton G, McGill MJ (1983) Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Simon R (2014) One week, 3,000 product ideas. Wall Street Journal (July 3), http://www.wsj.com/articles/one-week-3-000-product-ideas-1404332942.Google Scholar
• Simonton DK (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product person, and process perspectives. Psych. Bull. 129(4):475–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strzalko J, Kaszycka KA (1991) Physical attractiveness: Interpersonal and intrapersonal variability of assessments. Soc. Biol. 39:170–176.Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
• Swanson DR (1988) Migraine and magnesium: Eleven neglected connections. Perspect. Biol. Medicine 31(4):526–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1993) Human facial beauty. Human Nature 4(3):237–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tirunillai S, Tellis GJ (2014) Mining marketing meaning from online chatter: Brand analysis of big data using latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):463–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Florès L (2007) Adaptive idea screening using consumers. Marketing Sci. 26(3):342–360.Link, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Veryzer RW, Hutchinson JW (1998) The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. J. Consumer Res. 24(4):374–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ward TB (1995) What’s old about new ideas? Smith SM, Ward TB, Fiske RA, eds. The Creative Cognition Approach (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 157–178.Google Scholar
• Winkielman P, Halberstadt J, Fazendeiro T, Catty S (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psych. Sci. 17(9):799–806.Crossref, Google Scholar