Unveiling the influence of disciplinary biases on information sampling during an interdisciplinary collaboration creative task through eye-tracking analysis

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL New Ideas in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101129
Letty Y.-Y Kwan, Yu Sheng Hung
{"title":"Unveiling the influence of disciplinary biases on information sampling during an interdisciplinary collaboration creative task through eye-tracking analysis","authors":"Letty Y.-Y Kwan,&nbsp;Yu Sheng Hung","doi":"10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaboration across different disciplines (interdisciplinary collaboration) is necessary for frame-breaking innovations. However, successfully implementing such often requires individuals to sample ideas outside their disciplinary knowledge. In the past, studies tend to show that individuals inevitably show bias in using their disciplinary knowledge due to disciplinary socialization. The current research proposes that disciplinary centrism is not inevitable and can be attenuated when participants do not perceive disciplinary values across disciplines to have incommensurable differences. In an eye-tracking experiment, I show that participants who held a high (versus low) perception of value differences across disciplinary knowledge would focus on their disciplinary information more (versus less) during the information sampling stage in a creativity task. The study provides implications on how to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and highlights how information is being selected and used in the informational processing stage during a creative task.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51556,"journal":{"name":"New Ideas in Psychology","volume":"77 ","pages":"Article 101129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Ideas in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X24000576","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collaboration across different disciplines (interdisciplinary collaboration) is necessary for frame-breaking innovations. However, successfully implementing such often requires individuals to sample ideas outside their disciplinary knowledge. In the past, studies tend to show that individuals inevitably show bias in using their disciplinary knowledge due to disciplinary socialization. The current research proposes that disciplinary centrism is not inevitable and can be attenuated when participants do not perceive disciplinary values across disciplines to have incommensurable differences. In an eye-tracking experiment, I show that participants who held a high (versus low) perception of value differences across disciplinary knowledge would focus on their disciplinary information more (versus less) during the information sampling stage in a creativity task. The study provides implications on how to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and highlights how information is being selected and used in the informational processing stage during a creative task.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过眼动追踪分析揭示跨学科合作创意任务中学科偏见对信息采样的影响
跨不同学科的协作(跨学科协作)对于打破框架的创新是必要的。然而,成功地实施这些通常需要个人在他们的学科知识之外采样想法。过去的研究倾向于表明,由于学科社会化,个体在使用其学科知识时不可避免地会出现偏见。目前的研究表明,学科中心主义不是不可避免的,当参与者不认为跨学科的学科价值存在不可通约的差异时,学科中心主义可以减弱。在一项眼球追踪实验中,我发现,在创意任务的信息采样阶段,对跨学科知识的价值差异有较高(相对较低)感知的参与者会更多(相对较低)关注他们的学科信息。该研究为如何提高跨学科合作提供了启示,并强调了在创造性任务的信息处理阶段如何选择和使用信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: New Ideas in Psychology is a journal for theoretical psychology in its broadest sense. We are looking for new and seminal ideas, from within Psychology and from other fields that have something to bring to Psychology. We welcome presentations and criticisms of theory, of background metaphysics, and of fundamental issues of method, both empirical and conceptual. We put special emphasis on the need for informed discussion of psychological theories to be interdisciplinary. Empirical papers are accepted at New Ideas in Psychology, but only as long as they focus on conceptual issues and are theoretically creative. We are also open to comments or debate, interviews, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
True grit? The perception of a partner's effort boosts cognitive control to sustain commitment in joint action Holographic projection created by wavefunction interference of ions at the neuronal membrane as a potential method of generating mental imagery Accumulated evidence as an additive performance measure based on confidence ratings Meta-metacognition: Processes underlying judgments about metacognition Can artificial intelligence assistance enhance creativity in university students? An experimental study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1