The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing
Abstract
In their search for innovation, organizations often invite suggestions from external contributors. Soliciting suggestions is a form of distant search, since it allows organizations to tap into knowledge that may not reside within their organizational boundaries. Organizations engaging in distant search often face a large pool of suggestions, an outcome we refer to as crowding. When crowding occurs, organizations, given a limited attention span, can attend to only a subset of suggestions. Our core argument is that crowding narrows the attention of organizations; that is, despite organizations’ efforts to reach out to external contributors and access suggestions that capture distant knowledge, they are more likely to pay attention to suggestions that are familiar, not distant. We test our theory with a unique longitudinal dataset that captures how 922 organizations responded to 105,127 crowdsourced suggestions from external contributors. After distinguishing between three different dimensions of distance (content, structural, and personal), we find that (a) all three types of distance have independent negative effects on the likelihood of attention, (b) crowding amplifies these negative effects, and (c) there are differences among the effects’ magnitudes. We elaborate on the broader implications of these findings for the literatures on attention, search, and crowdsourcing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure
Zajonc, R. B. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025848 · Cited by 6,745
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
Cited by
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0014 · Cited by 1,226
The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value
Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0178 · Cited by 540
Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0186 · Cited by 518
Coordinated Exploration for Grand Challenges: The Role of Advocacy Groups in Search Consortia
Olsen, A. Ø., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0730 · Cited by 110
Cabigiosu, A. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3023 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 856-880
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2139111678
- Cited by
- 497
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 37.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amj.2012.0458
- The paper
- Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0458
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.