Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thematisches Denken

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die frühe Phase des Innovationsprozesses

Part of the book series: FOM-Edition ((FOMEDITION))

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen der Suchfeldbestimmung und Ideenbewertung kann thematisches Denken als Anwendungstool betrachtet werden. Der Ansatz beruht auf Erkenntnissen der Kognitionspsychologie und basiert auf der Wahrnehmung verschiedener Formen von Ähnlichkeit. Hierbei wird zwischen thematischer und taxonomischer Ähnlichkeit unterschieden. Thematische Ähnlichkeit basiert dabei darauf, dass verschiedene Objekte, Konzepte, oder Ideen external – über ein Thema – verbunden sind. Taxonomische Ähnlichkeit basiert auf gleichen Eigenschaften solcher Entitäten. Zwei Dinge sind sich also dann besonders ähnlich, wenn sie viele gemeinsame Eigenschaften oder Charakteristika haben.

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 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 37.99
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

Literatur

  • Ashby, F. G., & Perrin, N. A. (1988). Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychological Review, 95(1), 124–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busija, E. C., O’Neill, H. M., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1997). Diversification Strategy, Entry Mode, and Performacne: Evidence of Choice and Constraints. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. B., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A., Ravenscraft, D. J., & Anderson, P. (2004). From corporate strategy to business-level advantage: Relatedness as resource congruence. Managerial & Decision Economics, 25(6/7), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z. (2003). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 27, 911–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 112–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 249–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z., Gibbert, M., Guest, D., & Mazursky, D. (2012). Similarity and processing ease in evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 86–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M., & Lai, L. (1997). Similarity judgments in strategy formulation: role, process and implications. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, J. K., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Thematic ideation – Antecedents and consequences of individuals’ thematic similarity recognition. Creativity & Innovation Management, 21(4), 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, J. K., Gibbert, M., & Hoegl, M. (2014). Using Thematic Thinking to Achieve Business Success, Growth, and Innovation: Finding Opportunities Where Others Don’t Look. New York: Financial Times Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, J. K., Hoegl, M., & Weiss, M. (2015). Thematic Thinking and Individual Performance in Research and Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32, 939–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, J. K., Hoegl, M., & Gibbert, M. i.D. Idea selection in suggestion systems: A thematic similarity perspective. R&D Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gary, M. S. (2005). Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 643–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gati, I., & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting common and distinctive features perceptual and conceptual judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., & Hoegl, M. (2011). That’s not our business, or is it? – In praise of dissimilarity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(4), 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2009). How successful would a phone-pillow be: Using dual process theory to predict the success of hybrids involving dissimilar products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 652–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., & Mazursky, D. (1999). The voice of the product: Templates of new product emergence. Creativity & Innovation Management, 8(3), 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 200–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., Lehmann, D. R., & Mazursky, D. (2001). The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success. Management Science, 47(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition, 35(6), 1454–1464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization science, 21, 413–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition, 14(1), 12–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition, 65, 137–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., Walker, G., & Anand, J. (2002). Agency and institutions: National divergences in diversification behavior. Organization Science, 13(2), 162–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Wong, Y.-Y. (2003). Diversification and Economic Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Chinese Firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C. (1995). Diversification, restructuring and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, M., & Whittington, R. (2003). Diversification in context: a cross-national and cross-temporal extension. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 773–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClusky, M. 2009. The Nike Experiment: How the Shoe Giant Unleashed the Power of Personal Metrics, Vol. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance eeffects of diversification: A longnitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1097–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 489–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordoobadi, S., Xue, Y., & Shanteau, J. (2005). Similarity-based reasoning using proverbs in managing technological innovations for small manufacturers. Technology Management, 2(4), 433–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. (2002). The Effects of Prior Performance on the Choice Between Related and Uunrelated Acquisitions: Implications for the Performance Consequences of Diversification Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 39(7), 1003–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reger, R. K., & Huff, A. S. (1993). Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, S. E., & Brentani, U. De (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), 495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2007). Scope of linguistic influence: Does classifier system alter object concepts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seshadri, S., & Shapira, Z. (2003). The flow of ideas and timing of evaluation as determinants of knowledge creation. Industrial & Corporate Change, 12, 1099–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, S., & Estes, Z. (2008). Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference. Cognition, 108, 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, S. S., & Brown, A. L. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28(2), 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkenfeld, M. J., & Ward, T. B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 434–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39(3–4), 208–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Bern, Engehaldestr. 4, 3012, Bern, Schweiz

    Julia K. Fröhlich

Authors
  1. Julia K. Fröhlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia K. Fröhlich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stuttgart, Germany

    Thomas Abele

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fröhlich, J.K. (2016). Thematisches Denken. In: Abele, T. (eds) Die frühe Phase des Innovationsprozesses. FOM-Edition. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09722-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09722-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-09721-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-09722-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation