The Diversity Heuristic: How Team Demographic Composition Influences Judgments of Team Creativity

References

• Bastian B, Haslam N (2006) Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 42:228–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell JM, Hartmann D (2007) Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities and consequences of “happy talk”. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 72:895–914.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL (2011) Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. J. Management 37:709–743.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM (2016) Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61:433–468.Google Scholar
• Byron K, Keem S, Darden T, Shalley CE, Zhou J (2023) Building blocks of idea generation and implementation in teams: A meta‐analysis of team design and team creativity and innovation. Personality Psych. 76:49–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2014) Diversity Matters (Catalyst, New York).Google Scholar
• Coppock A, McClellan OA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research and Politics 6:1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuddy AJ, Fiske ST, Glick P (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 40:61–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Czopp AM, Kay AC, Cheryan S (2015) Positive stereotypes are pervasive and powerful. Perspectives Psych. Sci. 10:451–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danbold F, Unzueta MM (2020) Drawing the diversity line: Numerical thresholds of diversity vary by group status. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 118:283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daniels DP, Neale MA, Greer LL (2017) Spillover bias in diversity judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 139:92–105.Google Scholar
• DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2017) Face research laboratory London set. Retrieved October 26, 2021, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5047666.v3.Google Scholar
• Ellemers N, Rink F (2016) Diversity in work groups. Current Opinion Psych. 11:49–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Kramer RM (2003) Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Acad. Management J. 46:283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ely RJ, Thomas DA (2020) Getting serious about diversity: Enough already with the business case. Harvard Bus. Rev. 98:114–122.Google Scholar
• Eswaran V (2019) The business case for diversity in the workplace is now overwhelming. World Economic Forum. Retrieved https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/business-case-for-diversity-in-the-workplace/.Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, New York), 1–74.Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Todd AR, Homan AC, Phillips KW, Apfelbaum EP, Sasaki SJ, Richeson JA, et al. (2015) Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives Psych. Sci. 10:742–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilford JP (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Gündemir S, Galinsky AD (2018) Multicolored blindfolds: How organizational multiculturalism can conceal racial discrimination and delegitimize racial discrimination claims. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 9:825–834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad. Management J. 45:1029–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haslam N, Whelan J (2008) Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 2:1297–1312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Publications).Google Scholar
• Ito TA, Urland GR (2003) Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J. Personality Social Psych. 85:616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanter RM (2010) Think outside the building. Harvard Bus. Rev. 88:44.Google Scholar
• Kochan T, Bezrukova K, Ely R, Jackson S, Joshi A, Jehn K, Leonard J, et al. (2003) The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resources Management 42:3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SW, Bell BS (2003) Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ, eds. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12 (Wiley, New York), 333–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SR (2020) Diversity confirmed to boost innovation and financial results. Retrieved https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diversity-confirmed-to-boost-innovation-and-financial-results/#7c620165c4a6.Google Scholar
• Litman L, Robinson J, Abberbock T (2017) TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 49(2):433–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein J, Mueller J (2016) Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Acad. Management Discovery 2:320–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lount RB Jr, Sheldon OJ, Rink F, Phillips KW (2015) Biased perceptions of racially diverse teams and their consequences for resource support. Organ. Sci. 26:1351–1364.Link, Google Scholar
• Ma DS, Correll J, Wittenbrink B (2015) The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behav. Res. Methods 47:1122–1135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 6:31–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Management Rev. 21:402–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller JS, Wakslak CJ, Krishnan V (2014) Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 51:81–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peer E, Brandimarte L, Samat S, Acquisti A (2017) Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 70:153–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips KW (2014) How diversity makes us smarter. Sci. Amer. 311:43–47.Google Scholar
• Phillips KW, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (2006) Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processing Intergroup Relations 9:467–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips LT, Slepian ML, Hughes BL (2018) Perceiving groups: The people perception of diversity and hierarchy. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 114(5):766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Proudfoot D, Kay AC, Koval CZ (2015) A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psych. Sci. 26:1751–1761.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rock D, Grant H (2016) Why diverse teams are smarter. Retrieved https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.Google Scholar
• Runco MA, Bahleda MD (1986) Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. J. Creative Behav. 20:93–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Runco MA, Jaeger GJ (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creative Res. J. 24:92–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schiller B (2018) Want a more innovative company? Simple: Hire a more diverse workforce. Retrieved https://www.fastcompany.com/40515712/want-a-more-innovative-company-simple-hire-a-more-diverse-workforce.Google Scholar
• Silvia PJ, Martin C, Nusbaum EC (2009) A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills Creativity 4:79–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2018) Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Adv. Methods Practice Psych. Sci. 1(4):538–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sternberg RJ (1985) Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 49:607.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toossi M (2015) Labor force projections to 2024: The labor force is growing, but slowly. Retrieved https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/labor-force-projections-to-2024.htm.Google Scholar
• Unzueta MM, Binning KR (2010) Which racial groups are associated with diversity? Cultural Diversity Ethnic Minority Psych. 16(3):443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt GS, Janssen O (2003) Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. J. Management 29:729–751.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Dijk H, Van Engen ML, Van Knippenberg D (2012) Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 119:38–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annu. Rev. Psych. 58:515–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang J, Cheng GHL, Chen T, Leung K (2019) Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 40:693–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams KY, O’Reilly CA III (1998) Work group diversity. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140.Google Scholar
• Wilton LS, Apfelbaum EP, Good JJ (2019) Valuing differences and reinforcing them: Multiculturalism increases race essentialism. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 10(5):681–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yzerbyt V, Corneille O, Estrada C (2001) The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 5:141–155.Crossref, Google Scholar