Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process

Although previous research indicates that nominal groups generally outperform interactive groups at brainstorming tasks, companies still favor group interaction because of its presumed benefits beyond the brainstorming task. This study assesses the effectiveness of both types of groups in two domains that follow idea generation: selection of ideas and satisfaction with the process. Results indicate no superiority of interactive over nominal groups in these two domains. In addition, this study compares group effectiveness for groups selecting from their own sets of ideas and groups selecting ideas generated by another group.     

Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection

The conclusion that nominal brainstorming groups outperform interactive brainstorming groups has been exclusively based on studies of idea generation. This study tested whether the productivity advantage of nominal groups would also result in better idea selection. Nominal and interactive groups performed a task that involved idea generation and selection. Idea generation and selection were strictly separated for half the groups, but were combined for the other half. Nominal groups generated more ideas than interactive groups, and the ideas generated by nominal groups were more original and less feasible than the ideas generated by interactive groups. However, there were no differences among conditions in quality of the selected ideas. Further, idea selection was not significantly better than chance. This suggests that high productivity in brainstorming is not sufficient to lead to better solutions.     

Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process

Two experiments were conducted to explore the process of building on ideas in brainstorming. Although this is presumed to be an important role of brainstorming, this has never been explored experimentally. In one experiment individual and group brainstormers generated ideas which were subsequently presented to these same individuals and groups to combine and build on for additional ideas, either as groups or individuals. The combination process was influenced by whether the participants had previously brainstormed alone or in groups and the phase of the combination period (early vs. late). In a second study participants were presented lists of rare or common ideas to combine and build on either as individuals or groups. Although groups generated fewer combinations than nominal groups, they generated more novel and feasible combinations when combining rare ideas. These findings indicate that groups are able to benefit from the exchange process in building on each other's ideas and are interpreted in the context of past research on idea generation and evaluation in groups.     

Re‐Operationalizing Established Groups in Brainstorming: Validating Osborn's Claims

Since the introduction of brainstorming as an idea‐generation technique to address organizational problems, researchers have struggled to replicate some of the claims around the technique. One major concern has been the differences in the number of ideas generated between established groups as found in industry versus the non‐established groups used in the laboratory. The impact of group establishment on idea quality has also been an area of interest. This study addresses these issues by using a more in‐depth induction to establish groups and testing some discrepancies in the relationship between idea quality and idea quantity using 42 three‐person brainstorming groups. Results indicate that brainstorming groups, given an adequate amount of time (10 weeks) to become established, did generate more ideas and higher quality ideas than non‐established groups. Also, a relationship between idea quality and idea quantity was found. Further discussion of results and implications follows.     

Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations From an Associative Memory Perspective

Much literature on group brainstorming has found it to be less effective than individual brainstorming. However, a cognitive perspective suggests that group brainstorming could be an effective technique for generating creative ideas. Computer simulations of an associative memory model of idea generation in groups suggest that groups have the potential to generate ideas that individuals brainstorming alone are less likely to generate. Exchanging ideas by means of writing or computers, alternating solitary and group brainstorming, and using heterogeneous groups appear to be useful approaches for enhancing group brainstorming.     

Effects of Quantity and Quality Instructions on Brainstorming

One of the basic presumptions of brainstorming is that a focus on generating a large number of ideas enhances both the number of ideas generated and the number of good ideas (original and useful). Prior research has not clearly demonstrated the utility of such a quantity focus in comparison to a condition in which quantity is not emphasized. There have been some comparisons of the impact of quantity and quality focus on the number and quality of ideas, but the results of these comparisons have been mixed. The present study examined brainstorming with four different types of instructions: no specific focus, a quantity goal, a quality goal, or a joint quantity and quality goal. The quantity goal condition was superior to the other three conditions in leading to the generation of more ideas and more good ideas. These findings support Osborn's (1953) assumption that a quantity focus is most beneficial for brainstorming.     

Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming

In many meetings and work sessions, group members exchange ideas in order to come up with novel, creative solutions for problems and to generate ideas for future innovations. This type of group idea generation or brainstorming process has been studied in detail, and we have discovered much about the cognitive and social processes that underlie group idea generation. It appears that the brainstorming performance of groups is often hindered by various social and cognitive influences, but under the appropriate conditions, group idea exchange can be quite effective. In this article, we summarize the present state of knowledge, point out some significant gaps in our knowledge, and suggest a cognitive-social-motivational perspective to integrate the major findings and to guide future research in the area of group creativity and group idea generation.     

Perceptions of Brainstorming in Groups: The Quality Over Quantity Hypothesis

Our research focused on the implicit beliefs of potential brainstormers about the possible outcomes of brainstorming. We conducted four studies to assess the relative importance of quality and quantity as goals of brainstorming. In Study 1, we found evidence for a quality over quantity hypothesis: participants indicated that it was more important to produce creative, original, and high quality ideas than to generate a large number of ideas. In Studies 2 and 3, participants displayed support for the quality over quantity hypothesis by showing in group favoritism for a quality dimension but not a quantity dimension. Study 4 showed that participants believed brain-storming would enhance the quality of others' ideas more than one's own ideas, but they did not display a similar bias about idea quantity.     

Brainstorming and task performance in groups constrained by evidence

Group brainstorming is usually considered a task of divergent thinking, and the ideas produced in most research on brainstorming are counted and scored for creativity but put to no further use. We studied brainstorming by embedding it in a rule induction task that initially requires divergent thinking but increasingly requires convergent thinking as evidence accumulates across trials. We also tested whether brainstorming facilitated performance on the induction task itself. The experimental design was a 2 (nominal or interacting groups) × 3 (brainstorming early in the task, late in the task, or none) factorial. For brainstorming performance, nominal groups of 4 individuals outperformed face-to-face groups of 4 individuals. But as predicted from an analysis of the effects of constraining hypotheses by evidence, the advantage for nominal groups declined when brainstorming took place late in the task where there was a large amount of accumulated evidence to consider. Brainstorming did not generally affect performance on the induction task, although early group brainstorming resulted in more correct hypotheses than late group brainstorming. Group brainstorming was perceived as more effective than individual brainstorming by both interacting and nominal group members, a finding that extends the illusion of group productivity in brainstorming to tasks of convergent thinking.     

Social Comparison and Goal Setting in Brainstorming Groups1

Two studies were conducted to examine the influence of individual and group goal setting on brainstorming performance. Results from the studies indicated that the individual goals of nominal participants were higher than the individual goals of interactive participants. Group goal setting by consensus led to the lowest goals. There was no influence of goal setting on group brainstorming performance. However, participants who set goals rated their individual performance more favorably than did participants who did not set goals. The low group goals set by interactive groups are discussed in terms of assumptions made regarding the ability of other group members and the detrimental effects of group interaction.     

Current approaches used in studying creativity: An exploratory investigation

The goal of this research was to test whether the kind of question that is used to prompt brainstorming differentially affects individual and group idea generation performance. More specifically, it was examined if prompts that require brainstormers to generate alternate uses for common objects (e.g., other uses for cars) foster more benefits from collaborative ideation than prompts to generate improvements for an object, place, or process (e.g., ways to improve cars). These hypotheses were tested in two experiments using electronic idea exchanges. In Experiment 1, individuals generated ideas about either alternate uses or potential improvements for cars, SUVs, or vans. In Experiment 2, participants brainstormed in response to one of these two prompts in either an interactive group setting (exchanging ideas with two others) or individually (no idea sharing). The results of both experiments showed that alternate uses and improvements prompts indeed differentially affected ideational performance in terms of both idea quantity and quality. The results were also consistent with the well documented “process loss” on the improvements prompt, but the gap between interacting and nominal groups was closed on the alternate uses prompt. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Group Preference and Convergent Tendencies in Small Groups: A Content Analysis of Group Brainstorming Performance

This study examined the impact of preference for working in groups on interaction during a brainstorming session. Groups of 4 people were composed based on their individual group preference scores (i.e., high or low preference for working in groups). These groups worked as 4 independent individuals (nominal participants) or as an interactive group of 4. It was hypothesized that convergent tendencies promoted in interactive settings would hinder group brainstorming performance and that high group preference would enhance these convergent tendencies. These predictions were generally supported by the findings.     

Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals

In a field experiment with students, we show that a specific, difficult novelty goal, whether presented alone or in conjunction with brainstorming rules, improves novelty and creativity in individuals’ idea generation relative to brainstorming rules alone when goal commitment is high. Because creativity is often correlated with idea quantity in brainstorming studies, we controlled for idea quantity in order to demonstrate that the improvement is not due to changes in the number of ideas generated. These findings suggest that specific, difficult goals beyond quantity can improve idea generation. We also separately measured practicality and effectiveness of participants’ ideas. The results of these analyses suggest that goal commitment might be an important determinant of usefulness, and deserves additional attention in studies of idea generation.     

Performance and Perceptions of Brainstormers in an Organizational Setting

Employees of a corporation who had undergone considerable training for effective teamwork were asked to brainstorm about a job-relevant issue in groups of four or alone. One half of the groups brainstormed alone first, and the other half brainstormed as a group before brainstorming alone. Participants were also asked to rate their performance and indicate whether they would perform better in groups or alone on a brainstorming task. Consistent with past laboratory research, groups generated only about half as many ideas as a similar number of individuals (nominal group), and group brainstorming led to more favorable perceptions of individual performance. Participants also believed that they would brainstorm more effectively in a group than alone. These results indicate that productivity losses in brainstorming groups are not restricted to laboratory groups. Such losses occur even in groups who work together on a daily basis, have considerable training in group dynamics, and are dealing with a job-relevant issue. The sequence of alone to group brainstorming did not influence overall productivity. The relation of this research to that of facilitated and electronic brainstorming is discussed.     

Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming

Research on group brainstorming has demonstrated that it is less effective for generating large numbers of ideas than individual brainstorming, yet various scholars have presumed that group idea sharing should enhance cognitive stimulation and idea production. Three experiments examined the potential of cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Experiments 1 and 2 used a paradigm in which individuals were exposed to ideas on audiotape as they were brainstorming, and Experiment 3 used the electronic brainstorming paradigm. Evidence was obtained for enhanced idea generation both during and after idea exposure. The attentional set of the participant and the content of the exposure manipulation (number of ideas, presence of irrelevant information) influenced this effect. These results are consistent with a cognitive perspective on group brainstorming.     

Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming

This brainstorming experiment assessed the extent to which idea exposure produced cognitive stimulation and social comparison effects. One hundred and sixty participants were exposed to either a high or low number of common or unique ideas. The participants’ likelihood of engaging in social comparison processes (high or low) was also manipulated through instructional sets. The results indicated both cognitive stimulation and social comparison effects. Exposure to a high number of ideas and to common ideas enhanced the generation of additional ideas. The effects of exposure to a high number of ideas was greater under high than under low social comparison conditions. Finally, recall of exposed ideas was related to enhanced idea generation. These results are consistent with the social/cognitive influence model of group brainstorming (Paulus, Dugosh, Dzindolet, Putman, & Coskun, 2002).     

Individuals in mind,mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity

It has been argued that groups with individualistic norms are more creative than groups with collectivistic norms (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). This conclusion, however, may be too unspecific, as individualism–collectivism denotes a multidimensional continuum and may affect people's self-construal and values. This study analyzed to what extent these dimensions differentially impact upon group creativity. After manipulating self-construal and value orientation, 58 triads engaged in a brainstorming task. Groups with collectivistic value orientation generated more ideas than groups with individualistic value orientation. Furthermore, there was an interaction between value orientation and self-construal on originality: ideas were more original when group members combined collectivistic value orientation with individualistic self-construal. Thus, groups should integrate elements of both individualism and collectivism to ensure high creativity.     

Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas

In brainstorming research, quantity is assumed to breed quality. However, little is known about the cognitive mechanisms underlying this relationship. A parsimonious explanation assumes a random process, in which every idea has an equal chance of being a high-quality (original and feasible) idea. In contrast, a ‘deep exploration’ approach suggests that the originality (but not the feasibility) of generated ideas is dependent on the degree to which people engage in deep exploration of their knowledge. We conducted two experiments to test the latter hypothesis. Prior to a brainstorming task, participants were primed with subcategories of the brainstorming topic. Priming caused a higher relative productivity and average originality within the primed subcategory, but did not affect global productivity and originality across categories. This effect was replicated in dyadic interactions. These results support the deep exploration hypothesis, and suggest that the relationship between quantity and quality is more complex than has previously been assumed.     

Close Associations and Memory in Brainwriting Groups

The present experiment examined whether or not the type of associations (close (e.g. apple‐pear) and distant (e.g. apple‐fish) word associations) and memory instruction (paying attention to the ideas of others) had effects on the idea generation performances in the brainwriting paradigm in which all participants shared their ideas by using paper slips (Paulus & Yang, 2000). All participants were randomly subjected to exercising on either close or distant word associations ten minutes before the brainstorming session started. The findings showed that exercising on the close associations prior to the brainstorming session led to the generation of more unique ideas, category scanning, and depth of ideas than exercising on the distant ones in a subsequent brainstorming task. Memory instruction led to the generation of fewer ideas than no memory instruction. These findings were discussed from the aspect of the associative memory approach and cognitive stimulation approaches.     

Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea quantity?

In two experiments (n = 264 and 339), I treat brainstorming rules as assigned goals and compare their effectiveness to that of quantity goals as interventions to improve the number of ideas generated by individuals. Controlling for goal commitment, I find that brainstorming rules alone do not convey an advantage over even a vague quantity goal presented alone for enhancing the number of ideas generated in two common tasks. Detailed contrasts revealed that specific, difficult goals were only partially effective on their own, as expected when goal commitment is moderate. However, I find evidence in both studies that brainstorming rules are useful adjuncts to specific, difficult quantity goals. Importantly, their combination was the only consistently effective improvement over both vague quantity goals and brainstorming rules presented alone. I discuss implications for future research adopting a goal-based view of intervention in idea generation.