Which Idea to Pursue? Gender Differences in Novelty Avoidance During Creative Idea Selection

References

• Abraham A (2016) Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging Behav. 10(2):609–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adams RB, Kräussl R, Navone MA, Verwijmeren P (2021) Gendered prices. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(8):3789–3839.Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Lampert CM (2001) Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management J. 22(6–7):521–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aldrich H (1999) Organizations Evolving (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Althuizen N, Wierenga B, Chen B (2016) Managerial decision-making in marketing: Matching the demand and supply side of creativity. J. Marketing Behav. 2(2–3):129–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 45(2):357–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10:123–167.Google Scholar
• Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Pratt MG (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 36:157–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amanatullah ET, Morris MW (2010) Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 98(2):256–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amanatullah ET, Tinsley CH (2013) Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much … or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 120(1):110–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017) Gender distribution of bachelor’s degrees in the humanities. Accessed January 13, 2022, https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/gender-distribution-bachelors-degrees-humanities.Google Scholar
• Anand N, Watson MR (2004) Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. Acad. Management J. 47(1):59–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baer J, Kaufman JC (2008) Gender differences in creativity. J. Creative Behav. 42(2):75–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banaji MR, Hardin C, Rothman AJ (1993) Implicit stereotyping in person judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 65(2):272–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Scher SJ (1988) Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psych. Bull. 104(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM (2016) Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):433–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM (2019) When silver is gold: Forecasting the potential creativity of initial ideas. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 154:96–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM, Yu A (2021) Getting the picture too late: Handoffs and the effectiveness of idea implementation in creative work. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1191–1212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bledow R, Frese M, Anderson N, Erez M, Farr JL (2009) A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Indust. Organ. Psych. 2(3):305–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Bowles H, Flynn F (2010) Gender and persistence in negotiation: A dyadic perspective. Acad. Management J. 53(4):769–787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB, Chen YR (2007) Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psych. Rev. 114(1):133–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Coeurderoy R, Durand R (2017) Heterogeneous social motives and interactions: The three predictable paths of capability development. Strategic Management J. 38(9):1755–1773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organ. Sci. 2(3):239–262.Link, Google Scholar
• Burns T, Huang J, Krivkovich A, Rambachan I, Trkulja T, Yee L (2021) Women in the workplace. Mckinsey & Company. Accessed January, 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#.Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(3):367–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell DT (1960) Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psych. Rev. 67(6):380–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola DJ, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A (2018) Experimental evidence for tipping critical mass in collective behavior. Science 360(6393):1116–1119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM (2009) Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 97(6):1045–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chou EY (2015) What’s in a name? The toll e-signatures take on individual honesty. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 61:84–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chua RYJ, Roth Y, Lemoine JF (2015) The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(2):189–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cota AA, Dion KL (1986) Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups. An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 50(4):770–776.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo PL, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cross SE, Madson L (1997) Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psych. Bull. 122(1):5–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi M (1999) 16 Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. Sternberg R, ed. Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 313–336.Google Scholar
• Deaux K, Lafrance M (1998) Gender. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology (McGraw-Hill, New York), 788–827.Google Scholar
• Deaux K, Major B (1987) Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 94(3):369–389.Google Scholar
• Dennehy TC, Dasgupta N (2017) Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(23):5964–5969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewett T (2006) Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. J. Creative Behav. 40(1):27–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diedrich J, Benedek M, Jauk E, Neubauer AC (2015) Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psych. Aesthetics Creativity Arts 9(1):35–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dorfman PW, Howell JP (1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Farmer R, McGoun E, eds. Advances in International Comparative Management (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 127–150.Google Scholar
• Dutton JE, Ashford SJ, O’Neill RM, Lawrence KA (2001) Moves that matter: Issue selling and organisational change. Acad. Management J. 44(4):716–736.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(4):735–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Wood W (1999) The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions vs. social roles. Amer. Psych. 54(6):408–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellemers N (2018) Gender stereotypes. Annual Rev. Psych. 69:275–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmore KC, Luna-Lucero M (2016) Light bulbs or seeds? How metaphors for ideas influence judgments about genius. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 8(2):200–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Kramer RM (2003) Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgment. Acad. Management J. 46(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ford CM (1996) A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Acad. Management Rev. 21(4):1112–1142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gatignon H, Robertson TS (1985) A propositional new diffusion inventory. J. Consumer Res. 11(4):849–867.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand MJ, Nishii LH, Raver JL (2006) On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. J. Appl. Psych. 91(16):1225–1244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, Leslie LM, Lun J, Lim BC, Duan L, et al. (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science 332(6033):1100–1104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goncalo JA, Staw BM (2006) Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 100(1):96–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwald AG, Banaji MJ (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psych. Rev. 102(1):4–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haans RFJ, Pieters C, He Z (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management J. 37(7):1177–1195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Criscuolo P, George G (2015) Which problems to solve? Attention allocation and online knowledge sharing in organizations. Acad. Management J. 58(3):680–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han GH, Bai Y (2020) Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. J. Management Psych. 35(5):405–417.Google Scholar
• Hansen MT, Birkinshaw J (2007) The innovation value chain. Harvard Bus. Rev. 85:121–135.Google Scholar
• Harvey S, Kou CY (2013) Collective engagement in creative tasks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(3):346–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S, Mueller JS (2021) Staying alive: Toward a diverging consensus model of overcoming a bias against novelty in groups. Organ. Sci. 32(2):293–314.Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser J, Tellis GJ, Griffin A (2006) Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Sci. 25(6):687–717.Link, Google Scholar
• He WJ, Wong WC (2021) Gender differences in creative self-efficacy: Findings of mean and variability analyses. Thinking Skills Creativity 42:100955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedges LV, Nowell A (1995) Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science 269(5220):41–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM (2004) Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psych. 89(3):416–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hilton JL, Von Hippel W (1996) Stereotypes. Annual Rev. Psych. 47:237–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman C, Hurst N (1990) Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 58(2):197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Hofstede Insights. Country Comparison. Accessed March 15, 2023, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/.Google Scholar
• Hora S, Badura KL, Lemoine GJ, Grijalva E (2022) A meta-analytic examination of the gender difference in creative performance. J. Appl. Psych. 107(11):1926–1950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hora S, Lemoine GJ, Xu N, Shalley C (2021) Unlocking and closing the gender gap in creative performance: A multilevel model. J. Organ. Behav. 42(3):297–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang L, Krasikova DV, Liu D (2016) I can do it, so can you: The role of leader creative self-efficacy in facilitating follower creativity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 132:49–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hyde JS (2005) The gender similarities hypothesis. Amer. Psych. 60(6):581–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2000) A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psych. Sci. 11(5):365–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2003) Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. J. Ed. Psych. 95(4):796–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson PW, Messick S (1965) The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. J. Personality 33(3):309–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen K, Kovács B, Sorenson O (2018) Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights. Nature Biotechnology 36(4):307–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagan J (2009) Categories of novelty and states of uncertainty. Rev. General Psych. 13(4):290–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kallgren CA, Reno RR, Cialdini RB (2000) A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(8):1002–1012.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor H (2019) Sex differences and similarities in negative creativity. Personality Individual Differences 142:238–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karwowski M, Lebuda I, Wisniewska E, Gralewski J (2013) Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative self‐efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? J. Creative Behav. 47(3):215–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kashima Y, Yamaguchi S, Kim U, Choi SC, Gelfand MJ, Yuki M (1995) Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 69(5):925–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Management J. 45(6):1183–1194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ (2010) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keum DD, See KE (2017) The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(4):653–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Kiefer AK, Sekaquaptewa D (2007) Implicit stereotypes and women’s math performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women’s susceptibility to stereotype threat. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 43(5):825–832.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koning R, Samila S, Ferguson JP (2019) Female investors and inventions. Working Paper No. 19-124, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Kornish LJ, Hutchison-Krupat J (2017) Research on idea generation and selection: Implications for management of technology. Production Oper. Management 26(4):633–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(4):1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kray LJ, Thompson L, Galinsky A (2001) Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 80(6):942–958.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunda Z, Spencer SJ (2003) When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psych. Bull. 129(4):522.Google Scholar
• Laursen K, Salter A (2006) Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management J. 27(2):131–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazar M, Miron-Spektor E, Mueller JS (2022) Love at first insight: An attachment perspective on early-phase idea selection. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 171:104168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leary MR, Baumeister RF (2000) The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, San Diego), 1–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O, Frank F, Tanner MC, Jena AB, Newhouse RL (2019) Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: Observational study. BMJ 367(16573):1–8.Google Scholar
• Lockwood P (2006) “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psych. Women Quart. 30(1):36–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li D, Agha L (2015) Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348(6233):434–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Q, Maggitti PG, Smith KG, Tesluk PE, Katila R (2013) Top management attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Acad. Management J. 56(3):893–916.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Licuanan BF, Dailey LR, Mumford MD (2007) Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas. J. Creative Behav. 41(1):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (Plenum Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein J, Mueller J (2016) Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Acad. Management Discoveries 2(4):320–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lucas BJ, Nordgren LF (2015) People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 109(2):232–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luksyte A, Unsworth KL, Avery DL (2017) Innovative work behavior and sex-based stereotypes: Examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 39(3):292–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macatee RJ, Sarawgi S, Norr AM, Oglesby ME, Lejuez CW, Cougle JR (2015) Behavioral assessment of risk-taking under uncertain threat: Associations with affect and pain tolerance. Personality Individual Differences 87:256–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psych. Rev. 98(2):224–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Amer. Psych. 63(3):160–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGuire WJ, McGuire CV, Winton W (1979) Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one’s gender in the spontaneous self-concept. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 15(1):77–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JD, Campbell WK, Young DL, Lakey CE, Reidy DE, Zeichner A, Goodie AS (2009) Examining the relations among narcissism, impulsivity, and self-defeating behaviors. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(3):761–794.Google Scholar
• Mollick E, Nanda R (2016) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Sci. 62(6):1533–1553.Link, Google Scholar
• Mollick E, Robb A (2016) Democratizing innovation and capital access: The role of crowdfunding. California Management Rev. 58(2):72–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montag T, Maertz CP, Baer M (2012) A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. J. Management 38(4):1362–1386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris MW, Hong YY, Chiu CY, Liu Z (2015) Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 129:1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller JS, Melwani S, Goncalo JA (2012) The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psych. Sci. 23(1):13–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy MC, Steele CM, Gross JJ (2007) Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psych. Sci. 18(10):879–885.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2019) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019 data tables. Accessed January, 2020, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/data.Google Scholar
• Navis C, Glynn M (2011) Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Acad. Management Rev. 36(3):479–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker O, Mui R, Titus V (2020) Unwelcome voices: The gender bias-mitigating potential of unconventionality. Strategic Management J. 41(4):738–757.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patil SV (2018) “The public doesn’t understand”: The self-reinforcing interplay of image discrepancies and political ideologies in law enforcement. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(3):737–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Management J. 49(1):85–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE (2014) Social network ties beyond nonredundancy: An experimental investigation of the effect of knowledge content and tie strength on creativity. J. Appl. Psych. 99(5):831–846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE, Mannucci PV (2017) From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad. Management Rev. 42(1):53–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phelan JE, Rudman LA (2010) Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash in racial stereotype maintenance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 99(2):265–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell M, Ansic D (1997) Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision making, an experiment analysis. J. Econom. Psych. 18(6):605–628.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(11):1751–1761.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reitzig M, Sorenson O (2013) Biases in the selection stage of bottom‐up strategy formulation. Strategic Management J. 34(7):782–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reno RR, Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA (1993) The transsituational influence of social norms. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 64(1):104–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C (2011) Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Smith-Lovin L (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annual Rev. Sociol. 25(1):191–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Petkova AP (2007) When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organ. Sci. 18(2):217–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Robertson TS (1967) The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. J. Marketing 31(1):14–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers E (2002) Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behav. 27(6):989–993.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg MJ (1965) When dissonance fails: On eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitude measurement. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 1(1):28–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4):287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossman G, Schilke O (2014) Close, but no cigar: The bimodal rewards to prize-seeking. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(1):86–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Borgida E (1995) The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 31(6):493–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Fairchild K (2004) Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 87(2):157–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Glick P (2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):743–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Phelan JE (2008) Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:61–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Glick P, Phelan JE (2012) Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. Devine P, Plant A, eds. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, San Diego), 167–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmader T (2002) Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38(2):194–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonton DK (1999) Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psych. Inquiry 10(4):309–328.Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG (2016) Stereotype threat. Annual Rev. Psych. 67(1):415–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Fein S, Wolfe CT, Fong C, Dunn MA (1998) Automatic activation of stereotypes: The role of self-image threat. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 24(11):1139–1152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staw B (1990) An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. West MA, Farr JL, eds. Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ), 287–308.Google Scholar
• Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA (2011) STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J. Personality Soc. Psych. 100(2):255–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundén A, Surette BJ (1998) Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(2):207–211.Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Sci. 36(6):643–660.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
• Van Damme MJ, Anseel F, Duyck W, Rietzschel EF (2019) Strategies to improve selection of creative ideas: An experimental test of epistemic and social motivation in groups. Creativity Innovation Management 28(1):61–71.Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt GS, Janssen O (2003) Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. J. Management 29(5):729–751.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang S, Liu Y, Shalley CE (2018) Idiosyncratic deals and employee creativity: The mediating role of creative self‐efficacy. Human Resources Management 57(6):1443–1453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams KD (2007) Ostracism. Annual Rev. Psych. 58:425–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Wang X, Song LJ, Wu J (2017) Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. J. Appl. Psych. 102(2):180–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Wang X, Bavato D, Tasselli S, Wu J (2019) Understanding the receiving side of creativity: A multidisciplinary review and implications for management research. J. Management 45(6):2570–2595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zou X, Tam KP, Morris MW, Lee SL, Lau IYM, Chiu CY (2009) Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs. personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 97(4):579–597.Crossref, Google Scholar