IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0286968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does familiarity with an idea bias its evaluation?

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Greul
  • Tim G Schweisfurth
  • Christina Raasch

Abstract

Although many organizations strive for radical or disruptive new ideas, many fall short of their goals. We propose that a primary reason for this failure is rooted in the individuals responsible for innovation: while they seek novel ideas, they prefer familiar ones. While prior research shows that individuals are biased against ideas with high objective novelty, it has overlooked the role of subjective novelty, i.e., the extent to which an idea is novel or unfamiliar to an individual idea evaluator. In this paper, we investigate how such subjective familiarity with an idea shapes idea evaluation in innovation. Drawing on research from psychology and marketing on the mere exposure effect, we argue that familiarity with an idea positively affects the evaluation’s outcome. We present two field studies and one laboratory study that support our hypothesis. This study contributes to the understanding of cognitive biases that affect innovation processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Greul & Tim G Schweisfurth & Christina Raasch, 2023. "Does familiarity with an idea bias its evaluation?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-13, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286968
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286968
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286968&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0286968?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristin Behfar & Gerardo A. Okhuysen, 2018. "Perspective—Discovery Within Validation Logic: Deliberately Surfacing, Complementing, and Substituting Abductive Reasoning in Hypothetico-Deductive Inquiry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 323-340, April.
    2. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    3. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    4. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    5. Xiang Fang & Surendra Singh & Rohini Ahluwalia, 2007. "An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mere Exposure Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 97-103, March.
    6. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    7. Scott Sonenshein, 2016. "Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 739-758, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beretta, Michela & Deichmann, Dirk & Frederiksen, Lars & Stam, Daan, 2025. "Do you see what I see? How expertise and a decision-maker role influence the recognition and selection of novel ideas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    2. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    3. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    4. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    5. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    6. Keyvan Vakili & Sarah Kaplan, 2021. "Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1159-1183, June.
    7. Jiang, Lin & Clark, Brent B. & Turban, Daniel B., 2023. "Overcoming the challenge of exploration: How decompartmentalization of internal communication enhances the effect of exploration on employee inventive performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    8. Xiao, Fenglong & Shen, Yinjie, 2024. "Wolves at the door to the unknown: Innovation search and hedge fund activism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    9. Linus Dahlander & Arne Thomas & Martin W. Wallin & Rebecka C. Ångström, 2023. "Blinded by the person? Experimental evidence from idea evaluation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 2443-2459, October.
    10. Zhu, Kejia & Malhotra, Shavin & Li, Yaohan, 2022. "Technological diversity of patent applications and decision pendency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    11. Deyun Yin & Zhao Wu & Kazuki Yokota & Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama, 2023. "Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Schweisfurth, Tim & Zaggl, Michael A. & Schöttl, Claus P. & Raasch, Christina, 2017. "Hierarchical similarity biases in idea evaluation: A study in enterprise crowdfunding," Kiel Working Papers 2095, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Chengwei Liu, 2021. "In luck we trust: Capturing the diversity bonus through random selection," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 10(2), pages 85-91, June.
    14. Varshney, Mayank, 2023. "Learning-by-hiring: How do rival firms learn from focal firm's hiring," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    15. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    16. Swen Nadkarni & Reinhard Prügl, 2021. "Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 233-341, April.
    17. Kuosmanen, Natalia & Valmari, Nelli, 2023. "Renewal of Companies Through Product Switching," ETLA Working Papers 104, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    18. Kareklas, Ioannis & Muehling, Darrel D. & King, Skyler, 2019. "The effect of color and self-view priming in persuasive communications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 33-49.
    19. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    20. Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Hart, Timothy A., 2020. "How employee behaviors effect organizational change and stability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-131.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286968. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.