A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 73-95

  Paletz, Susannah B F ^a   Schunn, Christian D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Creativity; Group processes; Innovation; Multidisciplinary; Psychology of science; Shared mental models; Social cognition; Teams

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COGNITION; COOPERATION; CREATIVITY; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; COGNITION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CREATIVITY; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 79952982842     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.x     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147-173.
4. Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D., Levin, S., & Milem, J. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 5107-5514.
5. Bell, B. B., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27, 14-49.
6. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Peirce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189-1207.
7. Caruso, H., & Woolley, A. W. (2008). Harnessing the power of emergent interdependence to promote diverse team collaboration. In K. W. Phillips, E. Mannix, & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Diversity and groups. (Vol. 11, pp. 245-266. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
8. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 207-220.
9. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35, 29-38.
10. Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
11. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761-773.
12. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391-404.
13. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 47-60.
14. Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107-1123.
15. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5-18.
16. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22-39.
17. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
18. De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.
19. Derry, S. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Introduction to the study of interdisciplinarity: A beautiful but dangerous beast. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. xiii-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.) (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461-493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23. DuRussel, L. A., & Derry, S. (2005). Schema alignment in interdisciplinary teamwork. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 187-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, W., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 727-736.
25. Epstein, S. (2005). Making interdisciplinary collaboration work. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 245-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Feist, G. J. (2008). The psychology of science has arrived. Journal of the Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 2-5.
27. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). Mac/fac: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
28. Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2006). Cross-functionality and innovation in new product development teams: A dilemmatic structure and its consequences for the management of diversity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 431-458.
29. Goodwin, C. (2005). Seeing in depth. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 85-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Gorman, M. E. (2003). Expanding the trading zones for convergent technologies. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 424-428). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
31. Gorman, M. E. (2008). Scientific and technological expertise. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 23-31.
32. Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322-339.
33. Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., & Frey, D. (2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 31-42.
34. Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2005). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 145-166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.
36. Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Effects of source expertise and physical distance on minority influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 81-92.
37. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.
38. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York: Plenum Press.
39. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423-442.
40. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
41. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
42. Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56-73.
43. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
44. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71-115.
45. Jones, R. G., Stevens, M. J., & Fischer, D. L. (2000). Selection in team contexts. In J. F. Kehoe (Ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations: Human resource strategies (pp. 210-241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Klein, J. T. (2005). Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 23-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
48. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000-2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285-294.
49. Lambert, M. H., & Shaw, B. (2002). Transactive memory and exception handling in high-performance project teams (CIFE Technical Report #137). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
50. Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M., & Wholey, D. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 135-144.
51. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 415-469). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
52. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 164-172.
53. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.
54. Mahr, K. (2007). Top ten scientific discoveries. Time. Available at. Accessed December 24, 2007.
55. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 2.
56. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
57. Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups; the consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 22-37.
58. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449-460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
59. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
60. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., Gruenfeld, D. H., Hollingshead, A. B., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Groups, tasks, and technology: The effects of experience and change. Small Group Research, 24, 406-420.
61. Mishkin, A. H., & Larsen, B. (2006). Implementing distributed operations: A comparison of two deep space missions. Paper presented at American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 9th International Conference on Space Operations (SpaceOps), Rome, Italy, June 19-23, 2006. Available at Accessed June 15, 2008.
62. Mishkin, A. H., Limonadi, D., Laubach, S. L., & Bass, D. S. (2006). Working the Martian night shift: The MER tactical operations process. IEEE Robotics and Automation Society Magazine, Special Issue on Mars Exploration Rovers, 13, 46-53.
63. National Science Foundation (2007). 2006: Year in review. Available at Accessed December 24, 2007.
64. Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277-282.
65. Nemeth, C. J., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67-76.
66. Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
67. Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organizational Studies, 27, 125-145.
68. Nersessian, N. J., & Chandrasekharan, S. (in press). Hybrid analogies in conceptual innovation in science. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(3).
69. Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186-213.
70. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109-146.
71. Orasanu, J. (1995). Evaluating team situation awareness through communication. Proceedings of the international conference on experimental analysis and measurement of situation awareness, Daytona Beach, FL.
72. Paletz, S. B. F., Peng, K., Erez, M., & Maslach, C. (2004). Ethnic composition and its differential impact on group processes in diverse teams. Small Group Research, 35, 128-157.
73. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
74. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.
75. Rosenwein, R. (1994). Social influence in science: Agreement and dissent in achieving scientific consensus. In W. R. Shadish & S. Fuller (Eds.), The social psychology of science (pp. 262-285). New York: Guilford Press.
76. Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., & Burke, C. S. (2004). 25years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. In C. L. Cooper & E. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 47-91). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
77. Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research, 37, 662-700.
78. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080-1093.
79. Smith, E. R. (2008). Social relationships and groups: New insights on embodied and distributed cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 24-32.
80. Squyres, S. (2005). Roving Mars: Spirit, Opportunity, and the exploration of the red planet. New York: Hyperion.
81. Squyres, S., Grotzinger, J. P., Arvidson, R. E., Bell, J. F., Calvin, W., Christensen, P. R., Clark, B. C., Crisp, J. A., Farrand, W. H., Herkenhoff, K. E., Johnson, J. R., Klingelhofer, G., Knoll, A. H., McLennan, S. M., McSween, H. Y., Morris, R. V., Rice, J. W., Rieder, R., & Soderblom, L. A. (2004). In situ evidence for an ancient aqueous environment at Meridiani Planum, Mars. Science, 306, 1709-1714.
82. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
83. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
84. Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619-628.
85. Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
86. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43-75). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
87. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrated model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
88. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
89. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum.
90. Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., Kamalesh, K., & Critelli, J. (1998). Process gain and process loss: Comparing interpersonal processes and performance of culturally diverse and non-diverse teams across time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 409-430.
91. Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 26, 1-16.
92. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
93. Wegner, D. M., Erber, P., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.
94. Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189-239.
95. West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309-333). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
96. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-424.
97. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3-13). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
98. Wiener, E. L., Kanki, B. G., & Helmreich, R. L. (Eds.) (1995). Cockpit resource management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.