Why We Desire But Reject Creative Ideas

According to a new paper by researchers from Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, and the University of North Carolina, creative ideas make people uncomfortable. The paper, which is based on two studies from UPenn involving more than 200 people, is set to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science (ungated version here).

From the abstract:

People often reject creative ideas even when espousing creativity as a desired goal. To explain this paradox, we propose that people can hold a bias against creativity that is not necessarily overt, and which is activated when people experience a motivation to reduce uncertainty. In two studies, we measure and manipulate uncertainty using different methods including: discrete uncertainty feelings, and an uncertainty reduction prime. The results of both studies demonstrated a negative bias toward creativity (relative to practicality) when participants experienced uncertainty. Furthermore, the bias against creativity interfered with participants’ ability to recognize a creative idea. These results reveal a concealed barrier that creative actors may face as they attempt to gain acceptance for their novel ideas.

The irony is that as a society, we’re constantly talking about how much we value creativity. And yet, the study implies that our minds are biased against it because of the very nature of its novelty. The authors point out that we often view novelty and practicality as inversely related. We generally value practical ideas because they’re familiar and proven, while the more novel an idea, the more uncertainty there exists about whether it’s practical, error-free, or even useful. There is also the social cost that comes with endorsing unproven novel ideas.

Going forward, perhaps it’s not that we need to get better at producing creative ideas, but at learning how to accept them. The authors note:

Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. … The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity.

[HT: Eric M. Jones]


Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. eric says:

    Risk and cost/benefit analyses should quiet the nay-sayers. If those tools are ignored for the sake of taking a creative approach they beg for disaster.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
    • Peter Orlowicz says:

      I think that’s part of the problem, though; with an innovative, creative idea, the risks, costs and benefits are much more uncertain and difficult to ascertain before actually going through with the idea. Moreover, because of that uncertainty, a decisionmaker who doesn’t want to take the risk of failure (regardless of the potential benefits) can almost always generate some hypothetical worst-case scenario which would make the costs outweigh the benefits.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
  2. fred garnett says:

    We need to understand Epistemic Cognition, which isnt taught. Check out the PAH Continuum

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
  3. James says:

    “The irony is that as a society, we’re constantly talking about how much we value creativity.”

    We? Who exactly is “we” here? Far as I can tell, the creativity thing comes from a handful of educators, management consultants, and other such pundits, who’ve seized on it because selling the idea of a nebulous “creativity” is ever so much easier than teaching & fostering competence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 13
  4. Mike B says:

    This is why early adopters are their own special class of person. I know of few innovative new products or that didn’t initially come with high costs, “teething problems” or both. Sometimes these are hidden by an initial string of failures that the public never becomes aware of. I think that embrace of new ideas must go hand in hand with an acceptance of failure (another quality espoused by those contributors to this blog). Trying new things, failing, and repeating the cycle can be a lot more frustrating than just sticking with the same old stuff.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
  5. Bruce H. says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  6. oldtaku says:

    Pushing back against creativity is natural – most of the time the creative idea is misguided and damaging because the person didn’t bother to think it through all the way. For instance, the California state legislature could do with a lot less of their damaging creativity at coming up with new ways to destroy the state, and you could say the same thing about the proposition process.

    Occasionally someone has a real improvement (‘maybe we should stop relying on slavery’), then at that point you have the opposite problem.

    I think this is a fundamental personal opposition axis – conservative vs progressive in the /basic/ sense, not the politically charged misuse of the terms. How much risk are you willing to take on somebody’s half-baked but appealing idea?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
  7. AaronS says:

    From an anecdotal standpoint, I’ve seen this problem in action a number of times. The job descriptions asks for someone who is creative. Then, in the interview, the manager tell you how he/she is looking for someone who “thinks outside the box.” You’re hired. All is well.

    Until you actually think outside the box. Ha!

    The key is that when you do think creatively, it affects that status quo. Departments get comfortable doing things the same ol’ way. When you come in with radical new ideas, it’s upsetting.

    Before long, you’re told that you need to “follow procedures” and “the chain of command.” After all, if six other people have to sign off on a good idea before it can be implemented, there’s a chance not much will change.

    Somehow, even though I sometimes broke the fine china, I was able to bring about dramatic performance in a number of instances. But it cost me something.

    You would think that such things would bring promotion. It doesn’t. At least not in my world. It does get a nice pat on the head, maybe even a bonus, but to move that sort of person into upper management? Horrors!

    OK, part of that it probably just me rationalizing matters. But that’s pretty much the way it worked out. The “safe” players move up. The creative ones don’t. At least in many companies.

    But as soon as you move on looking for greener pastures, an job opening ad will be placed in the newspapers, and they’ll be looking for another “creative” person.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
    • Paul says:

      I’m a grad student in humanities at a top-tier university, and when I was applying and visiting, you can bet everyone seemed to love my “unique perspectives.” When I got here and started using that “outside the box” thinking in classes, well, it didn’t go over so well with some of my professors. I have actually been told to stick to what’s presented for a while… and this is in the supposedly open-minded confines of academia. It’s basically “Question everything… except my pet theories.”

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
      • robyn ann goldstein says:

        Dear Paul; Suggestion, Keep a diary with your ideas. Professors don’t necessarily like thinking and creative students i.e., only the great ones do. I had a few. Trouble is, it took a while for a few to get it and that was after I left that school for another. My real mentor not only got it, he told everyone who was interested in knowing. Now that’s progress- a prof. with integrity who stands up for their students. When you find a teacher like that, then sharing becomes a great way to learn even more. I had another professor who handed me a problem and then when I solved it, he used it and I got no credit at all. What would you call that? A crime? Perhaps. Deliberate? Maybe. Forgetfulness? Impossible. But it surely makes for a good mystery story.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
    • DaveyNC says:

      Organizations are like crabs in a basket. If you watch, every once in a while one crab will try to climb out. Inevitably, the other crabs pull him back down.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
    • Eric M. Jones says:


      Yes, yes, yes!

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
    • MMY says:

      This sounds about right, the challenge is when the creative thinkers with round or triangular ideas are forced to fit them into a corporate square box police by non-creative bureaucrats. True innovators have a “triangular” department somewhere with unique funding to explore the ideas and recognition to those management members who support them. I think 3M have gone some way towards doing this ? Anyone have an example.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Bob says:

    This strikes me as a classic case of: “OMG, they needn’t to run a study to figure that out??”. For crying out loud, anyone who has worked in an environment where it’s espoused that creativity is desired knows that really creative ideas are shunned. Only with time, data and (usually hardships) will these ideas take hold.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0