The interpersonal consequences of stealing ideas: Worse character judgments and less co-worker support for an idea (vs. money) thief

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104165
Lillien M. Ellis
{"title":"The interpersonal consequences of stealing ideas: Worse character judgments and less co-worker support for an idea (vs. money) thief","authors":"Lillien M. Ellis","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As the demand for creativity grows, the vulnerability of ideas to theft becomes increasingly salient. Knowledge workers are keenly aware of idea theft and nearly one-third report having co-workers who steal ideas. However, the severity of consequences people face for stealing ideas is unclear. In this article, I investigate the interpersonal consequences of stealing ideas compared to stealing money. Across a series of experiments, I found that idea thieves are judged to have worse character than money thieves, and that individuals are less willing to offer them co-worker support. Further, I found that stronger internal attributions for idea theft behaviors drive this effect. Furthermore, I tested and found no evidence supporting value as an alternative explanation. Lastly, I found that individuals are judged more negatively for stealing creative (vs. practical) ideas. Taken together, these findings suggest that idea theft has significant interpersonal consequences with negative implications for co-worker dynamics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104165"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000498","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

As the demand for creativity grows, the vulnerability of ideas to theft becomes increasingly salient. Knowledge workers are keenly aware of idea theft and nearly one-third report having co-workers who steal ideas. However, the severity of consequences people face for stealing ideas is unclear. In this article, I investigate the interpersonal consequences of stealing ideas compared to stealing money. Across a series of experiments, I found that idea thieves are judged to have worse character than money thieves, and that individuals are less willing to offer them co-worker support. Further, I found that stronger internal attributions for idea theft behaviors drive this effect. Furthermore, I tested and found no evidence supporting value as an alternative explanation. Lastly, I found that individuals are judged more negatively for stealing creative (vs. practical) ideas. Taken together, these findings suggest that idea theft has significant interpersonal consequences with negative implications for co-worker dynamics.

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
窃取想法的人际后果:更糟糕的性格判断和更少的同事对想法(与金钱)窃贼的支持
随着对创造力需求的增长,创意容易被窃取的问题变得越来越突出。知识工作者敏锐地意识到创意被窃取,近三分之一的人表示有同事窃取创意。然而,窃取创意所面临的严重后果尚不清楚。在这篇文章中,我将研究窃取创意与窃取金钱之间的人际关系。通过一系列的实验,我发现偷点子的人被认为比偷钱的人人品更差,而且人们不太愿意为他们提供同事间的支持。此外,我发现更强的内部归因会推动这种效应。此外,我测试并发现没有证据支持作为另一种解释的价值。最后,我发现窃取创造性(相对于实用性)想法的人会受到更负面的评价。综上所述,这些发现表明,创意盗窃对人际关系产生了重大影响,对同事动态产生了负面影响。
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
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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