Top

Published in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

2. Thematisches Denken

Author : Julia K. Fröhlich

Published in: Die frühe Phase des Innovationsprozesses

Publisher: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

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.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Einleitung

next chapter Technologieentwicklung als Innovationstreiber in bestehenden und disruptiven Märkten – von der Beobachtung zur Umsetzung

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

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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

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.

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.CrossRef

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

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

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

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

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.

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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

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

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.CrossRef

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

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

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

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.CrossRef

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

Title: Thematisches Denken
Author: Julia K. Fröhlich
Publisher: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
Book: Die frühe Phase des Innovationsprozesses
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-09721-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-658-09722-6

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09722-6_2