Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paying Attention Doesn’t Always Pay off: The Effects of High Attention Load on Evaluations of Ideas

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems and Neuroscience

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 29))

Abstract

Creativity is a key driver of success for organizations in the digital age. Managers engaged in evaluating the creativity of new ideas are often subject to a myriad of technology-mediated distractors that compete for their attention. In this work in progress paper, we investigate whether attentional overload results in an upward bias for IT-mediated creativity evaluations. We report on promising early results that examines this phenomenon and set out to study its implications on IT design complexity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. IBM: IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity Selected as Most Crucial Factor for Future Success. News releases (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gavetti, G.: Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organ. Sci. 23, 267–285 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A., Dennis, A.R.: Creative virtual environments: effect of supraliminal priming on team brainstorming. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 215–224. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2013.152

  4. Di Gangi, P.M, Wasko, M.M., Hooker, R.E.: Getting customers’ ideas to work for you: learning from dell how to succeed with online user innovation communities. MIS Q. Executive 9 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dennis, A.R., Minas, R.K., Bhagwatwar, A.P.: Sparking creativity: improving electronic brainstorming with individual cognitive priming. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 29. IEEE: 195–216. (2013). https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222290407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davern, M., Shaft, T., Te’eni, D.: Cognition matters: enduring questions in cognitive IS research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13, 273–314 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Antunes, P., Ferreira, A.: Developing collaboration awareness support from a cognitive perspective. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2011.161

  8. Kolfschoten, G.L.: Cognitive load in collaboration—brainstorming. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2011.107

  9. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4, 295–312 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, Q., Yang, S., Liu, M., Cao, Z., Ma, Q.: An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 62, 1–10, Elsevier B.V. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heninger, W.G., Dennis, A.R., Hilmer, K.M.: Research note: individual cognition and dual-task inference in group support systems. Inf. Syst. Res. 17, 415–424 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.l060.0102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Simonton, D.K.: Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: why creativity is inversely related to sightedness. J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 33, 253–266 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C.: Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251–296 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller, G.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Potter, R.E., Balthazard, P.: The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Q. 28, 621–643 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams, M.L., Dennis, A.R., Stam, A., Aronson, J.E.: The impact of DSS use and information load on errors and decision quality. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 176, 468–481 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.06.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stipacek, A., Grabner, R.H., Neuper, C., Fink, A., Neubauer, A.C.: Sensitivity of human EEG alpha band desynchronization to different working memory components and increasing levels of memory load. Neurosci. Lett. 353, 193–196 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2003.09.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Krause, C.M., Sillanmäki, L., Koivisto, M., Saarela, C., Häggqvist, A., Laine, M., Hämäläinen, H.: The effects of memory load on event-related EEG desynchronization and synchronization. Clin. Neurophysiol. 111, 2071–2078 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00429-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Klimesch, W., Schimke, H., Pfurtscheller, G.: Alpha frequency, cognitive load and memory performance. Brain Topogr. 5, 241–251 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parasuraman, R.: Neuroergonomics: brain, cognition, and performance at work. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 181–186 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lavric, A., Forstmeier, S., Rippon, G.: Differences in working memory involvement in analytical and creative tasks: an ERP study. Cogn. Neurosci. 11, 1613–1618 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200006050-00004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Riedl, R., Léger, P.-L.: Fundamentals of NeuroIS. In: Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fink, A., Benedek, M.: EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 44, 111–123, Elsevier Ltd. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R.H., Staudt, B., Neubauer, A.C.: Creativity meets neuroscience: experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods 42, 68–76 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dietrich, A., Kanso, R.: A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychol. Bull. 136, 822–848 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sandkühler, S., Bhattacharya, J.: Deconstructing insight: EEG correlates of insightful problem solving. PLoS ONE 3, e1459 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001459. (Edited by Paul Zak)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., Roskes, M.: Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 656–669 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211435795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith, S.M. Getting into and Out of Mental Ruts: A Theory of Fixation, Incubation, and Insight. The MIT Press (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kasof, J.: Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Res. J. 10, 303–315 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1004_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. West, M.A.: Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol. 51, 355–387 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Finke, R.A., Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B.: Creative Cognition Theory, Research, and Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell, D.T.: Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychol. Rev. 67, 380–400 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Getzels, J.W. Creativity, intelligence, and problem finding: retrospect and prospect. Front. Creativity Res., 88–102 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Watter, S., Heisz, J.J., Karle, J.W., Shedden, J.M., Kiss, I.: Modality-specific control processes in verbal versus spatial working memory. Brain Res. 1347, 90–103 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.05.085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kiss, I., Watter, S., Heisz, J.J., Shedden, J.M.: Control processes in verbal working memory: an event-related potential study. Brain Res. 1172, 67–81 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.06.083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Du, Q., Qiao, Z., Fan, W., Zhou, M., Zhang, X., Wang, A.G.: Money talks: a predictive model on crowdfunding success using project description. In ACIS 2015, 1–8 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Goran Calic, Nour El Shamy & Khaled Hassanein

  2. Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Scott Watter

Authors
  1. Goran Calic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nour El Shamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khaled Hassanein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott Watter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khaled Hassanein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems and Quantitative Sciences (ISQS), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Fred D. Davis

  2. University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr, Oberösterreich, Austria

    René Riedl

  3. Department of Information Systems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Jan vom Brocke

  4. Department of Information Technology, HEC Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Pierre-Majorique Léger

  5. Department of Information Systems, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Adriane B. Randolph

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Calic, G., Shamy, N.E., Hassanein, K., Watter, S. (2019). Paying Attention Doesn’t Always Pay off: The Effects of High Attention Load on Evaluations of Ideas. In: Davis, F., Riedl, R., vom Brocke, J., Léger, PM., Randolph, A. (eds) Information Systems and Neuroscience. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01087-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation