Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:46:32.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is the Fundamental? The Role of Cognition in Creativity and Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Michael D. Mumford ,
Samuel T. Hunter  and
Cristina L. Byrne
Michael D. Mumford*
Affiliation:
The University of Oklahoma
Samuel T. Hunter
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Cristina L. Byrne
Affiliation:
The University of Oklahoma
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 353 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma

**

Department of Psychology, Penn State University

References

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organizational Science, 3, 321–341.Google Scholar
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N. Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspective on Science and Practice, 2, 305–337.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Google Scholar
Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship of leader skills and knowledge to leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 65–86.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, W. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. P. (1989). American genesis: A history of the American genius for invention. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunsicker, C. M., Mumford, M. D., & Ligon, G. S. (2008). Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 137–154.10.1080/10400410802088779Google Scholar
Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and universe. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Creativity and reason in cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Licuanan, B. F., Dailey, L. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 1–27.Google Scholar
Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Effects of idea appraisal and revision standards. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 231–246.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Hunter, S. T. (2008). Planning for innovation: A multi-level perspective. In Yammarino, F. J. & Dansereau, F. (Series Eds.) & Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., & Bedell-Avers, K. E. (Vol. Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Vol. 7. Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (1st ed., pp. 107–154). UK: Elsevier.10.1016/S1475-9144(2008)7Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (2007). Creative thought: Cognition and problem solving in a dynamic system. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 2 pp. 33–77). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In Yammarino, F. J. & Dansereau, F. (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 91–122.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 77–85.Google Scholar
Osburn, H. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem solving skills. Creative Research Journal, 18, 173–190.10.1207/s15326934crj1802_4Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J. (2008). When being social facilitates creativity: Social networks and creativity within organizations. In Zhou, J. & Shalley, S. E. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 189–210). New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scott, G. M., Lertiz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.Google Scholar
Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 79–98.Google Scholar
Souitaris, V. (2001). External communication determinants of innovation in the context of a newly industrialized country: A comparison of objective and perceptual results from Greece. Technovation, 21, 25–34.Google Scholar
Vincent, A. S, Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.Google Scholar