CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 24(23), 200207, 2012

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.677341

How Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience Support

Invention: A Study with German Independent Inventors
Harald A. Mieg and Stephan J. Bedenk
Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin

Anna Braun
PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Frankfurt

Franz J. Neyer
Friedrich Schiller Universitat, Jena

How does invention depend on personality? Do inventors differ from noninventors? This
study investigated the personal factors inuencing a sample of independent inventors in
Germany (N 69). Standardized psychological questionnaires were employed to assess
the Big Five personality dimensions, willingness to take risks, self-concept, and self-
efcacy. For a comparison with noninventors, scores from reference samples were taken.
Hypotheses were formulated based on research into creativity and entrepreneurship and
the normative DABEI Stage Model of invention. As expected, the independent inventors
showed higher levels of extraversion and openness to experience. In addition, inde-
pendent inventors stood out in terms of emotional stability (low neuroticism scores). Sur-
prisingly, in this sample success as an inventor correlated negatively with openness to
experience. The interpretation is along the lines that inventors may work in a focused
manner and technical implementation of an innovative idea may be optimized with great
persistence. Discussion centers around the generalizability of the results.

From as early as Schumpeter (1911=1934), inventions have
been considered as the drivers of innovation and, there-
fore, of the growth of national economic health. According
to the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce
(USPTO), there are more than 400,000 patent applications
(U.S. and international) each year (USPTO, 2010), with up
to 28% of patent applications coming from independent
inventors (Vargas, 2007). Even though business manage-
ment research has dealt in more detail with inventors (Cec-
cagnoli, Gambardella, Giuri, Licht, & Mariani, 2006;
Dahlin, Taylor, & Fichman, 2004; Ernst, Leptien, & Vitt,
2000), in-depth psychological research on inventors is still
quite rare (cf. Astebro, Jeffrey & Adomdza, 2007; Hender-
son, 2004a, 2004b; Lemelson-MIT Program, 2003; Mark-
man, Balkin, & Baron, 2002; Weinstein & Klein, 1995).
This is surprising, as research on inventors would seem to
be a fruitful addition to existing psychological research into
creativity, inventors representing highly creative people
(e.g., Weisberg, 2006; see also Weisman Deitch, 2001).
Against this background, this study followed a very
basic psychological approach: It is an empirical investi-
gation of inventors personalities. It was intended to
shed light on differences between the personalities of
independent inventors and noninventors in Germany.

Our thanks are due to the Hans-Sauer-Stiftung, Munich, which CLASSES OF INVENTORS
supported this study. This article has been preceded by a previous pub-
lication by Braun, Meig, & Neyer (2009).
Correspondence should be sent to Harald A. Mieg, Humboldt-
Three classes of inventors can be distinguished (see Mieg,
Universitaet zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. Hoffmann, & Spars, 2010). First, employed inventors
E-mail: harald.mieg@geo.hu-berlin.de who, as a rule, work in the research and development

departments of companies or other institutions and
clearly show little interest in possible independent work
(see Kassicieh, Radosevich, & Banbury, 1997). Second,
inventor-entrepreneurs, as inventors, set up their own
companies and take on a management role. Third, inven-
tors who are independent, often shy away from setting
up their own companies and, instead, attempt to sell their
inventions. This research focused on personality traits
and success factors of this third group of inventors, as
they represent the prototypical creative and Edison-like
type of inventor (Dahlin et al., 2004; Lettl, Rost, & von
Wartburg, 2009).
PERSONALITY TRAITS OF INDEPENDENT
INVENTORS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
DABEI STAGE MODEL
For this research, three sources for the identication of
relevant personality traits were considered. The rst was
psychological research into creativity and the second
included studies on entrepreneurial activity. As a third
source, hypotheses about personality traits of inventors
were derived from the DABEI Stage Model of invention
(DABEI, 1987).
The DABEI Stage Model has been developed by the
German inventor-entrepreneur Hans Sauer and other
prolic German inventors, such as Artur Fischer, who
holds over 1,000 patents, and Ludwig Bolkow, the inven-
tor of the Airbus (see DABEI, 1987). It is an experience-
based and nonempirical model of psychological success
factors as seen by expert inventors. As a normative
model, the DABEI Stage Model describes the route from
the idea to the product and full exploitation (see DABEI,
1987, p. 2). The 10 stages of the model show how inven-
tors should ideally progress to master the process of
invention and to develop the characteristics required to
be successful in inventing (Table 1). To allow relevant
personality traits to be allocated to the stages of the
model, the 10 stages have been divided into three phases
(see Table 1).
Phase 1: Self-Knowledge: Self-Concept and
Self-Efficacy
As a central element of self-knowledge, the DABEI Stage
Model emphasizes the importance of a suitable self-
concept for successful inventors (see DABEI, 1987,
p. 45). Hence, psychological research on self-concepts
was also taken into account for this study. The self-
concept describes a persons assumptions about his or
her own personal characteristics and how these assump-
tions affect experience and behavior (see Turner, 1968).
Hellstrom, Hellstrom, and Berglund (2002) revealed an
innovators reexive self-conception (p. 274), that is resources without knowing the precise output. Blanch-
INVENTORS 201
mainly based on self-efcacy, self-esteem, and awareness
of capabilities and limitations. In terms of success factors,
Hellstrom et al. (2002) found a positive self-concept to be
supportive for technological innovation. Research on the
expectation of self-efcacy (Bandura, 1997) matches
these ndings. People with high expectation of
self-efcacy are optimistic about mastering a difcult
situation, whereby success is attributed to ones own
skills (see Beghetto, 2006; Choi, 2004; Schwarzer & Jeru-
salem, 1999). In fact, expectations of self-efcacy
appeared to be directly relevant to success in entrepre-
neurial behavior or entrepreneurship (Boyd & Vozikis,
1994; Chandler & Jansen 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
One study also reported higher self-efcacy for inventors
who at the time of the study were actively dealing with
business formation (Markman et al., 2002).
Phase 2: Creativity: The Big Five Personality Traits
Based on previous research into creativity, extraversion
and openness to change were considered as important
characteristics of inventors in phase 2 of the DABEI Stage
Model (Table 1). Together with agreeableness, neuroti-
cism, and conscientiousness, these two traits constitute
the 5-Factor model of personality (see Costa & McCrae,
1992), one of the most frequently used classication
models for personality traits (Schnabel, Asendorpf, &
Ostendorf, 2002).
Specic assessments of the Big Five involving real
inventors are to date not to be found in the literature.
Appropriate results come, instead, from research into
creativity and innovation. For instance, Biebrich and
Kuhl (2002) generally regarded openness to experience
as one of the most important personality traits for
creative processes (see also King, McKee Walker, &
Broyles, 1996). On an empirical basis, Ng and Rodrigues
(2002) found higher levels of extraversion and openness
to experience in innovators (per Kirton, 1976).
Phase 3: Entrepreneurship: Willingness to
Take Risks
Willingness to take risks is a crucial factor for both crea-
tivity (Phase 2 of the DABEI Stage Model) and entrepre-
neurship (Phase 3 of the DABEI Stage Model). As
regards creativity, Sternberg and Lubart (1996) empha-
sized that in psychological processes responsible for cre-
ative solutions, risky, rather than carefully thought-out,
strategies are applied. Forster and Friedmann (2003)
remarked, That, on many levels, creative solutions and
innovations are riskier rather than conservative (p. 150).
Willingness to take risks also characterizes entrepre-
neurial behavior (see, e.g., March & Shapira, 1987; Stew-
art & Roth, 2001). The risk consists in investing
202 MIEG ET AL.

TABLE 1
Stage System of the DABEI Inventors Manual

Stage Situation, What to Pay Attention to and What to Do? Relevant Personality Traits?

1. Self-knowledge It is necessary to check whether one has the Phase 1

Who am I?
What can I do?
Psychological makeup?
2. Knowing the system
What am I in society?
3. Identifying and classifying
problems and formulating the
task
4. Search for ideas and methods of
solving problems
5. Invention process, maturity of
the invention
6. Patent rights, yes? no?
Publication?
7. Implementation by granting a
license, setting up a rm, alone
or in cooperation
8. Commercialization only in ones
own company or by granting
licenses?
9. Further and=or new
developments of the technology
and rms culture
10. Market penetration, expansion
of the rm, diversication,
follow-up
predisposition to be an inventor and=or Self-knowledge (DABEI Stage 1):
entrepreneur and if so, what knowledge and skills self-concept (Hellstrom, Hellstrom, &
still need to be acquired. Berglund, 2002), self-efcacy (Bandura,
1997)
The possible effects of an innovation in systems Phase 2
intended for it and associated systems are to be Creativity (DABEI Stages 26): openness to
identied. experience (McCrae, 1987), extraversion
The prospects of success in solving problems improve (King, McKee Walker, & Broyles, 1996;
with the clarity of the formulation of a task. Ng & Rodrigues, 2002)
Evaluate several approaches to a solution.
The success of a development often depends on the
motive, motivation and intensity with which
problems are tackled.
The process of invention usually begins with
fortuitous information regarding the problem to
be solved. Models and samples accelerate the
process of bringing an invention to maturity.
With a low level of protection, it often pays to
maintain secrecy and to concentrate on the
production know-how, which is where imitators
frequently fail.
This most difcult of stagesassociated with the Phase 3
highest riskusually needs a lot of time if Stages 1 Entrepreneurship (DABEI Stages 710):
to 6 are still mortgaged. Good cooperation willingness to take risks (cf. Patterson,
partners reduce problems and risks! 2002; March & Shapira, 1987; Weber, Blais,
Many an innovation is denied success if the sales & Betz, 2002)
concept is not appropriate to the product, Sales is
lacking in creativity and knowledge of the system
and its benets are not known to the user.
Complex products or systems do not achieve
maturity until after trials have been conducted or
experience gained with their use. So Stages 3, 4, 5
and 6 and sometimes also 7 and 8 have to be
repeated, with some modications.
With the diffusion of an innovation, the structures of
a company set up for it change. And the market
and context have changed too. With the
reorientation of the company, follow-up and
obligations to employees and to society should also
be taken into account.

ower and Oswald (1998) and Petrakis (2004) argued
that these risks mainly include nancial resources in
the way that entrepreneurs expend their own capital
and loans. Nevertheless, references in Patterson (2002)
to the discovery of a certain lack of restraint in innova-
tors lead one to suspect that willingness to take risks
may also be relevant for ethical decisions.
Model, the rst hypothesis (H1) stated that independent
inventors in this sample should differ from noninventors
in ve personality traits: self-concept, self-efcacy, open-
ness to experience, extraversion, and risk attitude.
As a second hypothesis (H2), these personality traits
were assumed to be each directly correlated with inven-
tors success.

METHOD
HYPOTHESES
Participants
Based on the reported research and literature on creati-
vity and entrepreneurship and assumptions made by Participants were all inventors associated with the
the eld-experienced authors of the DABEI Stage Hans-Sauer-Stiftung (a non-prot-making foundation
 INVENTORS 203

that supports inventors) and members of the INSTI-
Ernderclub Berlin (www.ernderclub-berlin.de [inven-
tors club]). For data assessment, all inventors were
visited and provided with the standardized test package.
69 inventors (64 males, 5 females) took part in the study,
which corresponded to a return rate of 59%. 49 inven-
tors (46 males, 3 females) were associated with the
Hans-Sauer-Stiftung. The age of the participants ranged
from 27 to 80 years (M 49.3; SD 14.2). All of them
were independent inventors. However, 20% of them
were additionally employed. As compensation, every
participant received a book on cognitive psychology.
Measures
The test package included three parts. Part A contained
standardized psychological tests in the following order:
by Johnson, Wilke, & Weber, 2004) on measu-
ring the risk attitude with a total of six sub-scales:
investment, ethical, recreational, health, social
and gambling. The focus of this study was on
the two subscales investment and ethical.
3. Two of the total of 11 subscales of the Frankfurt
self-concept scales after Deusinger (1986): the
Frankfurt Selbstkonzeptskala zur allgemeinen
Leistungsfahigkeit (FSAL, self-concept scale on
general performance) and the Frankfurt Selbst-
konzeptskala zur Verhaltens- und Entscheidungs-
sicherheit (FSVE, self-concept scale on certainty
in behavior and decisions).
4. The short scale on the general expectation of self-
efcacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). The scale
contains 10 items that cover general, optimistic
self-belief.

1. The German version of the NEO-FFI (Borkenau
& Ostendorf, 1993; Korner, Geyer, & Brahler,
2002) as a measure of the Big Five personality
factors.
2. The Domain-Specic Risk Scale (DOSPERT;
Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002; in a German version
Reliabilities of all scales were satisfactory to good
with a coefcients ranging from .66 to .86 (see Table 2).
As reference values for noninventors, reported reference
scores were taken from manuals and representative
studies (see Table 2 and Results section for specic
references).

TABLE 2
Personality Characteristics of Inventors

Inventors (N 69)
Reference Samplesa
Scale a M (s) M (s) z value

NEO-FFI (Big Five)

Openness to experience 0.66 2.66 (0.46) 2.71 (0.52)
0.80
2.05 (0.47) 10.78
Extraversion 0.76 2.50 (0.50) 2.36 (0.57) 2.04
2.19 (0.51) 5.05
Neuroticism (emotionally unstable) 0.86 1.37 (0.63) 1.84 (0.70)
5.58
1.63 (0.63)
3.43
Agreeableness 0.59 2.54 (0.39) 2.44 (0.49) 1.70
2.51 (0.49) 0.51
Conscientiousness 0.78 2.77 (0.48) 2.53 (0.63) 3.16
2.68 (0.57) 1.31
DOSPERT-G (Risk attitude)
Investment 0.77 2.57 (0.96) 2.63 (0.89)
0.56
Ethical 0.82 1.98 (0.67) 2.74 (0.68)
9.28
Gambling 0.86 1.59 (0.85) 1.71 (0.76)
1.31
Health 0.73 2.43 (0.68) 2.74 (0.66)
3.90
Recreational 0.79 2.57 (0.89) 2.68 (0.77)
1.19
Social 0.47 3.53 (0.52) 3.71 (0.47)
3.18
Frankfurt self-concept scales
FSAL 0.82 Total (s2): 47.54 (40.56) Total (s2): 47.1 (34.12) 0.11
FSVE 0.70 Total (s2): 28.62 (12.74) Total (s2): 27.8 (16.16) 0.42
Scale of general self-efcacy
Self-efcacy 0.85 Total (s2): 31.16 (15.85) Total (s2): 29.5 (28.42) 0.49

Note. Bold scales are relevant to the hypothesis on differences between inventors vs. non-inventors. FSAL Frankfurt Selbstkonzeptskala zur
allgemeinen Leistungsfahigkeit. FSVE Selbstkonzeptskala zur Verhaltens- und Entscheidungssicherheit.
a
Big-Five factors: rst reference sample by the Borkenau and Ostendorf (1993) test manual; second reference sample by Korner, Geyer, and
Brahler (2002).

p < 0.05 (bilateral).  p < 0.01 (bilateral).
204 MIEG ET AL.
Part B of the test package provided information
about personal and professional interests and socio-
demographic background information. Part C enquired
about various aspects of inventive activity including suc-
cess factors. To test the predictability of inventors
success by personality traits, success was operationalized
by measuring the number of patents. German patent law
protects inventions in the form of patents, aesthetic mod-
els and utility models (PAUMs). For this study, PAUMs
applied for, PAUMs granted, and PAUMs established in
the market were assessed. In the present sample, the
number of PAUMs applied for ranged from 0 to 75,
the number of PAUMs granted from 0 to 40, and
the number of PAUMs established in the market from
0 to 20.
RESULTS
Comparison of Inventors and Noninventors on
Personality Traits
Table 2 shows the results of the z-tests for the compari-
sons of inventors and noninventors on personality traits.
In line with the hypothesis H1, a signicant difference in
extraversion was found between independent inventors
and noninventors. As suspected, inventors in this sample
were more extrovert than the average population, as
reported by Borkenau and Ostendorf (1993) and Korner
et al. (2002). In terms of openness to experience, the sup-
posed difference did not appear in comparison to the ref-
erence sample from the German NEO-FFI manual
(Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993). However, the difference
could be found in comparison to the reference sample
provided by Korner et al. (2002). With willingness to
take investment risks, the participating inventors showed
no signicant difference compared to the population as
reported by Johnson et al. (2004). However, inventors
in this sample were signicantly less willing to take risks
in the ethical area, compared to the population studied
by Johnson et al. (2004). No signicant differences could
be found between the participating inventors and the ref-
erence samples of noninventors on the two self-concept
scales (for reference samples, see Deusinger, 1986), as
well as on the short self-efcacy scale on the general
expectation of self-efcacy (for a reference sample, see
Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). Taken overall, there
was no full empirical support for the rst hypothesis
(H1), which stated that inventors and noninventors
should differ in ve personality traits (self concept,
self-efcacy, openness to experience, extraversion, and
risk attitude).
In addition to the tests of the a priori hypothesis,
comparisons between inventors and noninventors were
run for all the other assessed variables. Table 2 shows
the values for the three other dimensions of the Big Five,
which were considered less relevant for inventors prior
to this study (neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientious-
ness). As can be seen, inventors in this sample were
found to be signicantly more emotionally stable (with
lower neuroticism values) than noninventors.
Personality Traits as Success Factors
The predictability of inventors success (operationalized
by number of patents: PAUMS applied for, PAUMs
granted, PAUMs established in the market) by scores
on the personality scales was tested by running multiple
regression analyses. Here, calculations of success vari-
ables were performed with age-free residual variables,
as age was found to be signicantly correlated with
PAUMs (e.g., PAUMS granted: r 0.40; p < 0.01).
The second hypothesis (H2), which stated that the ve
personality traits should each directly predict inventors
success, could not be fully conrmed with the present
data. Only one regression for the openness to experience
scale resulted in a signicant negative beta for the
PAUMs established in the market (R2 0.095, corrected
R2 0.079; F 5.97; unstandardized b
0.64, standar-
dized b
0.29; p < 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The main aim of this study was to determine personality
factors of independent inventors in a German sample in
comparison to reference samples of non-inventors. Based
on the assumptions derived form the normative DABEI
Stage Model that successful invention depends on an
optimistic self-concept, self-efcacy (Phase 1) and both
creative (Phase 2) and entrepreneurial (Phase 3)
personality traits, questionnaires for relevant personality
models were applied.
Concerning self-concept and self-efcacy, no differ-
ence could be found between inventors and
noninventors. In addition, scores on the self-concept
and self-efcacy scales failed to predict success of inven-
tors in a signicant manner. Thus, the requirement of the
DABEI inventors manual for self-knowledge (see
Table 1) was not reected in the form of particularly
marked self-concepts in real inventors.
On the entrepreneurial side, an increased willingness
to take nancial and ethical risks among inventors was
expected. However, this could not be conrmed with
the present data. It is worth noting thatin comparison
to noninventorsinventors showed not very marked
characteristics on all the risk scales taken into account.
In the case of health and ethical and social risk behavior,
inventors even showed a signicantly lower level than the
population average. The general nding of inventors
 INVENTORS 205

willingness to take risks was, therefore, clearly disproved their goalshence presumably the negative correlation
for this sample. between success and openness to new experience. One
might come to the paradoxical conclusion that only
those inventors who are at a certain point in the inven-
Focused Cognition as an Explanation of
tion process not open to further experiences any longer,
Unexpected Emotional Stability and Doubtful
but who are strictly focused on their invention instead
Influence of Openness to Experience
are successful in the market in the long run.
With regard to the creative aspect of invention (Phase 2),
some of the presented results have not turned out as sup-
posed. Prior to the study, high levels of openness to Limitations and Future Research
experience and extraversion were expected for inventors.
One limitation of this research might be a lack of general-
This was fully conrmed for extraversion. For openness
izability, as the study focused on independent inventors
to experience it was only conrmed, when comparing
only. Hence, the results cannot be generalized to all
inventors to the representative population sample pro-
inventors. As already indicated in the introduction sec-
vided by Korner et al. (2002). However, the reason
tion, personal characteristics of independent inventors
why the comparison with the sample provided by
can differ from employed inventors and inventor
Borkenau and Ostendorf (1993) failed signicance might
entrepreneurs (Kassicieh et al., 1997; Mieg et al., 2010).
be a methodical one. Borkenau and Ostendorf surveyed
For instance, the willingness to take nancial or ethical
a relatively young sample (average age 28.7 years), which
risks is likely to be stronger among inventor
tends to go along with higher scores on openness to
entrepreneurs than among independent inventors.
experience.
Second, as the sample included German inventors only
Prior to the study, it was also expected that both
and the reference samples represent standard values for
these factors would directly predict inventors success.
the German population, conclusions may be limited with
However, the expected positive correlation could not
regard to differences between inventors and noninven-
be conrmed with this data. Surprisingly, an even nega-
tors in other countries. However, the presented ndings
tive correlation between openness to experience and suc-
t also to the view of American inventors, as research
cess as an inventor was found. That is, the inventors that
by Henderson (2004a, 2004b) shows.
were more successful in the market than others were
Another limitation of this study is that hypotheses
those who were less open to new experience. A stepwise
were mainly derived from the normative DABEI Stage
multiple regression analysis with all relevant scales
Model. This implicates that psychological factors that
showed that the openness to experience scale proved
have been found to be important for inventors (e.g., opti-
to be a stable predictor of PAUMs established in the
mism and overcondence; Astebro et al., 2007) were only
market. With regard to prior psychodiagnostic research
considered in the framework of the DABEI Stage Model
into creativity and entrepreneurship, this robust nega-
(e.g., as a marked self-concept). This approach might be
tive correlation between openness to experience and suc-
seen as a potential methodological drawback, parti-
cess in commercializing patents was not to be expected.
cularly since the DABEI Stage Model is an experience-
A second surprising result was the very low neuroticism
based, and not a scientically founded, model. However,
level of inventors. That is, inventors turned out to be
it seemed fruitful to derive hypotheses about psychologi-
much more emotionally stable than noninventors.
cal factors from a model of invention. As there is still no
Again, prior research into creativity can merely explain
comprehensive theory on the psychology of invention (cf.
these differences between inventors and non-inventors.
Lemelson-MIT Program, 2003), the DABEI Stage Model
One approach to explain our data can presumably be
was applied, instead. Nevertheless, the theory-driven
constructed by using qualitative research on inventors.
development of a broader framework and its empirical
According to this line of research, inventors are strongly
validation could be a valuable work in future research
intrinsically motivated (e.g., Henderson, 2004a, 2004b).
on the psychology of inventors.
Their personal motivation is based on mastery and
enthusiasm (Henderson, 2004a, pp. 114115) and
leads to a blend of trying things out on the one hand
and to persistence in pursuing an idea on the other (see REFERENCES
also Lemelson-MIT Program, 2003; R. J. Weber,
1996). According to this explanation, inventors work in Astebro, T., Jeffrey, S. A., & Adomdza, G. K. (2007). Inventor
a focused manner (Mieg, 2010; Wolf & Mieg, 2010). perseverance after being told to quit: The role of cognitive biases.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 253272. doi: 10.1002=
They need a certain emotional stability to not let them- bdm.554.
selves be distractedhence the low neuroticism Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York,
levelsand perseverance and isolation in the pursuit of NY: Freeman.
206 MIEG ET AL.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efcacy: Correlates in middle
and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447457.
doi: 10.1207=s15326934crj1804_4.
Biebrich, R., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Neurotizismus und Kreativitat: Struk-
turelle Unterschiede in der Beeinussung kreativer Leistung. [Neuroti-
cism and creativity: Structural differences in the determination of
creative performance]. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische
Psychologie, 23, 171190.
Blanchower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepre-
neur? Journal of Labour Economics, 16, 2660.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Funf-Faktoren-Inventar
(NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae (Handanweisung). Gottingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The self-efcacy on the develop-
ment of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 18, 6377.
Braun, A., Mieg, H. A., & Neyer, F. J. (2009). Sind Ernder anders als
die Kreativitats forschung erwarten lasst? [Do inventors differ from
how psychological research on creativity perceives them?]
Wtschaftpsychologie, 11, 6979.
Ceccagnoli, M., Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Licht, G., & Mariani, M.
(2006). Study on evaluating the knowledge economyWhat are
patents actually worth? The value of patents for todays economy
and society. Report for the European Commission Brussels.
Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1997). Founder self-efcacy and ven-
ture performance: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 28, 98102.
Choi, J. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative perfor-
mance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity
Research Journal, 16, 187199. doi:10.1207=s15326934crj1602&3_4
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assess-
ment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 513.
Deutsche Aktionsgemeinschaft Bildung Erndung Innovation.
(1987). DABEIHandbuch fur Ernder und Unternehmer. Dussel-
dorf, Germany: VDI Verlag.
Dahlin, K., Taylor, M., & Fichman, M. (2004). Todays Edisons or
weekend hobbyists: Technical merit and success of inventions by
independent inventors. Research Policy, 33(8), 11671183. doi:
10.1016=j.respol.2004.06.003.
Deusinger, I. M. (1986). Die Frankfurter Selbstkonzeptskalen (FSKN).
Handanweisung [Frankfurt self-concept scales. Mannual. Gottingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Ernst, H., Leptien, C., & Vitt, J. (2000). Inventors are not alike: The
distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47, 184199.
Forster, J., & Friedmann, R. (2003). Kontextabhangige Kreativitat.
[Context-depending creativity]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 211(3),
149160.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efcacy: A theoretical analy-
sis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management
Review, 17, 183211.
Hellstrom, T., Hellstrom, C., & Berglund, H. (2002). The innovation
self: Exploring self among a group of technological innovators.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 267286. doi: 10.1108=
02683940210428083.
Henderson, S. J. (2004a). Inventors: The ordinary genius next door. In R.
J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity (pp.
103125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Henderson, S. J. (2004b). Product inventors and creativity: The ner
dimensions of enjoyment. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 293
312. doi: 10.1207=s15326934crj1602&3_12.
Johnson, J. G., Wilke, A., & Weber, E. U. (2004). Beyond a trait view
of risk taking: A domain-specic scale measuring risk perceptions,
expected benets, and perceived-risk attitudes in German-speaking
populations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 35, 153163.
Kassicieh, S. K., Radosevich, H. R., & Banbury, C. M. (1997). Using
attitudinal, situational, and personal characteristics variables to pre-
dict future entrepreneurs from national laboratory inventors. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 44, 248257.
King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity
and the ve-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30,
189203.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622629.
Korner, A., Geyer, M., & Brahler, E. (2002). Das NEO-Funf-Faktoren
Inventar (NEO-FFI) Validierung anhand einer deutschen Bevolker-
ungsstichprobe. Diagnostica, 48, 1927.
Lemelson-MIT Program. (2003). The architecture of invention (Report
of the workshop, held in August 2003). Boston: School of Engineer-
ing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved February 14,
2009 from http://web.mit.edu/INVENT/n-pressreleases/downloads/
architecture.pdf
Lettl, C., Rost, K., & von Wartburg, I. (2009). Why are some inde-
pendent inventors heroes and others hobbyists? The moderating
role of technological diversity and specialization. Research Policy,
38, 243254.
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk
and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 14041418.
Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and
new venture formation: The effects of general self-efcacy and regretful
thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 149166.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258
1265.
Mieg, H. A. (2010). Focused cognition: Information integration
and complex problem solving by top inventors. In K. L. Mosier &
U. M. Fischer (Eds.), Informed by knowledge: Expert perfor-
mance in complex situations (pp. 4154). London, UK: Taylor &
Francis.
Mieg, H. A., Hoffmann, C., & Spars, G. (2010). Evaluierung der
volkswirtschaftlichen Bedeutung von Einzelerndungen und deren
Umsetzungspotential am Standort Berlin. Studie im Auftrag der
Senatsverwaltung fur Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen, Bericht.
Retrieved May 25, 2011 from http://www.berlin.de/imperia/
md/content/senwirtschaft/innovationspolitik/bedeutung_einzeler
ndungen.pdf
Ng, A. K., & Rodrigues, D. (2002). A Big-Five personality prole of
the adaptor and innovator. Journal of Creativity Behavior, 36,
254268.
Patterson, F. (2002). Great minds dont think alike? Person-level
predictors of innovation at work. International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 17, 115144.
Petrakis, P. E. (2004). Entrepreneurship and risk premium. Small
Business Economics, 23, 8598.
Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Ostendorf, F. (2002). Replicable
types and subtypes of personality: German NEO-PI-R versus
NEO-FFI. European Journal of Personality, 16, 724.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development (R.
Opie., Trans.). London, UK: Transaction. (Original German work
published 1911)
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von
Lehrer- und Schulermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen
Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modell-
versuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universi-
tat Berlin.
Sternberg, J. R., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.
American Psychologist, 51, 677688.

Turner, R. H. (1968). The self conception in social interaction.
In G. Gordon & R. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction
(pp. 93106). New York, NY: Wiley.
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce. (2010). U.S. patent statistics:
Chart calendar years 19632008. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ofces/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm
Vargas, T. (2007, November 18). Novel ideas pass through lter at
U.S. patent ofce. Washington Post. Retrieved June 8, 2011 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/
14/AR2007111400770.html
Stewart, W. H. Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences
between entrepreneurs and managers. A meta-analytic review. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 86, 145153.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specic-
risk-attitude sale: Measuring risk perception and risk behavior.
INVENTORS 207
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263290. doi:
10.1002=bdm.414.
Weber, R. J. (1996). Toward a language of invention and synthetic
thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 353364.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in
problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. P. (1995). Resistance of personal
risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology, 14,
132140.
Weisman Deitch, J. (2001). A nation of inventors. Researching American
history. Carlisle, MA: Discovery Enterprises.
Wolf, K., & Mieg, H. A. (2010). Inventors as experts in complex
problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22,
443462. doi: 10.1080=09541440902916845.
Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.