Why measuring individual innovativeness is so difficult: a critical review of standard methods and new ideas to measure innovativeness
Keywords:innovativeness, IIS, recruiting, survey, experimental innovation
Innovative people are desperately wanted in nowadays world, wherefore tools to measure individual innovativeness are needed. This work reviews the commonly used metrics to gauge innovativeness, such as the Individual Innovativeness Scale (IIS). Hereby, it demonstrates via a survey that often a simple self-evaluation question contains the same information as conventional psychological surveys. As an alternative, another survey investigates whether bibliographical information can predict innovativeness. Finally, a new type of experiments to measure innovativeness is proposed, enabled by recent progress in neuroscience, that will not rely on classical self-report questions but on empirical data on the candidate’s brain activity in response to external stimuli.
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J., 1998. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology, Information systems research, 9.2: 204-215.
Aldahdouh, T. Z., Nokelainen, P., 2020. Technology and social media usage in higher education: The influence of individual innovativeness. Sage Open 10.1: 2158244019899441.
Ali, I., 2019. Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4.1: 38-46.
Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A.,1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 19.3: 235-258.
Benesty, J., 2009. Pearson correlation coefficient. Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1-4.
Bharadwaj, S. & Menon, A., 2000. Making Innovation Happen in Organizations: Individual Creativity Mechanisms, Organizational Creativity Mechanisms or Both?, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17: 424-34.
Burch, G. S., Pavelis, C., & Port, R. L. 2008. Selecting for creativity and innovation: The relationship between the innovation potential indicator and the team selection inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 177-181
Cancian, F., 1967. Stratification and risk-taking: A theory tested on agricultural innovation. American Sociological Review: 912-927.
Coan, J A. & Allen, J. J., 2004. Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological psychology 67.1-2: 7-50.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. From catalogue to classification: Murray’s needs and the five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258- 265.
De Jong, J. PJ. & Den Hartog, D. N., 2007. How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management.
De Jong, J. PJ. & Den Hartog, D. N., 2010. Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour, Creativity and Innovation Management, 19: 23-36.
Dietrich, A. & Kanso, R, 2010. A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological bulletin 136.5: 822.
Elder Jr., G. H., 1998. The Life Course as Developmental Theory, Child Development, 69: 1-12.
Fink, A. et al., 2009. The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and fMRI. Human brain mapping 30.3: 734-748.
Furnham, A., 1986. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual differences 7.3: 385-400.
Goldsmith, R. E. & Hofacker, C. F.,1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the academy of marketing science 19.3: 209-221.
Hirschman, E. C. 1980. Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity, Journal of Consumer Research, 7.
Homer-Dixon, T. et al., 2022. A Call for An International Research Program on the Risk of a Global Polycrisis: 11.
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L. & Friedrich, T., 2012. Hiring an innovative workforce: A necessary yet uniquely challenging endeavor, Human Resource Management Review, 22: 303-22.
Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K. & Cook, C. D., 1977. Scales for the Measurement of Innovativeness, Human Communication Research, 4: 58-65.
LaRocco, J, Le, M. D., & Paeng, D., 2020. A systemic review of available low-cost EEG headsets used for drowsiness detection. Frontiers in neuroinformatics: 42.
Leavitt, C, & Walton,C., 1975. Development of a scale for innovativeness. ACR North American Advances.
Logothetis, N. K.,2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453.7197 (2008): 869-878.
Lyon, L., 2017. Dead salmon and voodoo correlations: should we be sceptical about functional MRI?. Brain 140.8: e53- e53.
Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 622-29.
Kirton, M. J., 2003. Adaption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and Change (Routledge).
Kristalina, G., 2022. Facing Crisis Upon Crisis: How the World Can Respond, International Monetary Fund, Accessed 29.09.2022. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/04/14/sp0414 22-curtain-raiser-sm2022.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Menold, J, Jablokow, K., Purzer, S., Ferguson, D. M. & Ohland, M., 2014. A critical review of measures of innovativeness, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. 1990. An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647.
Patterson, F., Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T., 2002. Great minds don’t think alike? Person-level predictors of innovation at work." International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 17 17: 115.
Renn, O, Lucas, K., Haas, A. & Jaeger, C. 2019. Things are different today: the challenge of global systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research, 22: 401-15.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition (Free Press).
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C., 2008. Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of leadership & Organizational studies 15.2: 145-158.
Shipton, H et al., 2005. Managing people to promote innovation. Creativity and innovation management 14.2: 118-128.
Schober, P, Boer, C. & Schwarte, L- A.,2018. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia 126.5: 1763-1768.
Soutar, G. N. & Ward, S., 2008. Looking at Behavioral Innovativeness, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 20: 1-22.
Stauffer, D., 2016. Personal innovativeness as a predictor of entrepreneurial value creation, International Journal of Innovation Science, 8: 4-26.
Teplan, M., 2018. Fundamentals of EEG measurement. Measurement science review 2.2: 1-11.
Ter Haar, P., 2018. Measuring innovation: A state of the science review of existing approaches, Intangible Capital, 14.
Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E., 1992. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of personality 60.2: 225-251.
Zimmerman, M. A., 2013. Resiliency Theory: A Strengths- Based Approach to Research and Practice for Adolescent Health, Health Education & Behavior, 40: 381-83.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2023 Daniel Aleksander Vajner, Julian Heuer, Paolo Vigo, Kevin Zhang, Dung Nguyen Viet, Yue Zhang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).