Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance

Abstract

Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive DistanceWuyts, Stefan; Colombo, M.; Dutta, S.; Nooteboom, B. General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research -You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain -You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. AbstractThis article provides empirical tests of the hypothesis of 'optimal cognitive distance', proposed by Nooteboom (1999Nooteboom ( , 2000, in two distinct empirical settings. Variety of cognition, needed for learning, has two dimensions: the number of agents with different cognition, and differences in cognition between them (cognitive distance). The hypothesis is that in interfirm relationships optimal learning entails a trade-off between the advantage of increased cognitive distance for a higher novelty value of a partner's knowledge, and the disadvantage of less mutual understanding. If the value of learning is the mathematical product of novelty value and understandability, it has an inverse-U shaped relation with cognitive distance, with an optimum level that yields maximal value of learning. With auxiliary hypotheses, the hypothesis is tested on interfirm agreements between pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies, as well as on interfirm agreements in ICT industries.

Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams

“…Therefore, scholars argue that there is an optimal cognitive distance with respect to learning possibilities (Nooteboom, 1999). This takes the form of an inverted U-shape relationship in the sense that both low and high scores on partner diversity are associated with low levels of learning potential and innovativeness and moderate scores on partner diversity are associated with high levels (Wuyts et al, 2005;Gilsing et al, 2008). If we transfer these results to our context of knowledge co-production, such an optimum of diversity levels can also be expected related to project effectiveness.…”

Customers’ ways of making sense of a financial service relationship through intersubjective mirroring of others

“…24,25 The idea of closeness and distance, although interesting, is not applicable in this study. The results show evidence that the customers do not perceive all close interactions with the bank advisors as relationships, and that they perceive distance as sometimes something desirable and sometimes not.…”

“…24,25 This article is concerned with how customer and supplier perceptions mirror each other in a relationship, which is why the idea of distance is not in focus in this article.…”

Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: When Is It Better to Cooperate?

“…This leads to the optimal cognitive distance hypothesis which has been the subject of many studies. The consensus in the empirical literature is that technological or cognitive proximity between cooperation partners has an inverted 'U'-shaped relation with the value of learning the partners obtain (or, alternatively, the innovative potential of the alliance) (Lin et al, 2012;Gilsing et al, 2008;Nooteboom et al, 2007;Wuyts et al, 2005;Mowery et al, 1998). An understandability-novelty trade-off exists such that effective learning by interaction is better accomplished by limiting cognitive overlap while securing cognitive distance.…”