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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

Does quantity generate quality? Testing the fundamental principle of brainstorming

The purpose of this work is to test the chief principle of brainstorming, formulated as "quantity generates quality." The study is included within a broad program whose goal is to detect the strong and weak points of creative techniques. In a sample of 69 groups, containing between 3 and 8 members, the concurrence of two commonly accepted criteria was established as a quality rule: originality and utility or value. The results fully support the quantity-quality relation (r = .893): the more ideas produced to solve a problem, the better quality of the ideas. The importance of this finding, which supports Osborn's theory, is discussed, and the use of brainstorming is recommended to solve the many open problems faced by our society.     

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.     

Collaborative fixation: Effects of others' ideas on brainstorming

Three experiments examined whether or not fixation effects occur in brainstorming as a function of receiving ideas from others. Exchanging ideas in a group reduced the number of domains of ideas that were explored by participants. Additionally, ideas given by brainstormers conformed to ideas suggested by other participants. Temporal analyses showed how the quantity, variety and novelty of ideas fluctuate over the course of a brainstorming session. Taking a break modulated the natural decline over time in the quantity and variety of ideas. Although fixation was observed in brainstorming in terms of conformity and restriction of the breadth of ideas, it did not influence the number of ideas generated in these experiments. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

面对面和计算机群体决策在观点产生上的比较

以144名被试组成32个群体,通过实验室模拟实验,对群体规模、群体类型和交流方式等3个变量在观点产生的数量和质量等指标上进行了比较。结果表明：（1）在所有实验条件下,CM（以计算机为中介的）决策群体都比FTF（面对面的）决策群体产生了更多数量的有效观点;CM名义群体比FTF名义群体产生了更多数量的有效观点。有效观点和创新观点产生的数量,主要受产生式障碍和评价恐怖的影响。（2）交流方式影响群体创新观点的数量,但对观点产生的深度和广度没有影响。群体规模和群体类型影响观点产生的深度和广度。名义群体比互动群体产生范围更广的观点。一般来说,名义群体比互动群体产生的观点深度高。匿名性和平行沟通是促进群体成员产生大量创新观点的主要原因。（3）相对于传统的FTF头脑风暴法,运用电子头脑风暴法的群体成员对自己或群体所产生的观点用于解决实际问题的信心不足。     

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.     

Brainstorming,Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making

This study investigated the effect of brainstorming experience on the ability of groups to subsequently select the best ideas for implementation. Participants generated ideas either alone or in interactive groups and with either the regular brainstorming rules or with additional rules designed to further increase the number of ideas generated. All participants subsequently were asked to select their top five ideas in a group evaluation phase. Groups of individuals generating ideas in isolation (nominal groups) generated more ideas and more original ideas and were more likely to select original ideas during the group decision phase than interactive group brainstormers. Additional rules increased idea generation but not idea originality or idea selection.     

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.     

Unblocking brainstorms

Brainstorming groups have consistently produced fewer ideas than have the equivalent number of individuals working by themselves. These results have been attributed to social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and production blocking in groups. In this study, a new brainstorming technique--electronic brainstorming--that may reduce both production blocking and evaluation apprehension was assessed. Electronic and nonelectronic groups and nominal and interacting groups were compared in a 2 x 2 factorial design. Electronic groups were more productive than nonelectronic groups, but the productivity of nominal and interacting groups did not differ. In contrast, interacting groups felt better about the idea-generation process than did nominal groups. Ways in which electronic brainstorming can reopen a long dormant area of research and application are discussed.     

The illusion of group productivity: a reduction of failures explanation

It has consistently been found that people produce more ideas when working alone as compared to when working in a group. Yet, people generally believe that group brainstorming is more effective than individual brainstorming. Further, group members are more satisfied with their performance than individuals, whereas they have generated fewer ideas. We argue that this ‘illusion of group productivity’ is partly due to a reduction of cognitive failures (instances in which someone is unable to generate ideas) in a group setting. Three studies support that explanation, showing that: (1) group interaction leads to a reduction of experienced failures and that failures mediate the effect of setting on satisfaction; and (2) manipulations that affect failures also affect satisfaction ratings. Implications for group work are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations

Organizations and societies all need good, useful ideas to survive and prosper. People often enjoy brainstorming, though it is not as productive as they tend to believe. Groups can potentially generate more and better ideas when ‘brainwriting’; that is, silently sharing written ideas in a time‐ and sequence‐structured group format. This conceptual paper identifies likely boundary conditions to the promising findings from brainwriting laboratory research generalizing to real‐world organizational contexts. Important dimensions of organizational context may be revealed by drawing on the journalistic principle to examine what, who, when, where, and why certain outcomes result from particular organizational practices (Johns, 2006). Multiple potential contextual moderators are suggested in each of these five areas. Subsequent field research will inform the idea‐generation literature as well as those concerned with eliciting high‐quality, useful ideas to address particular organizational and societal challenges.     

The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries

Researchers of group creativity have noted problems such as social loafing, production blocking, and especially, evaluation apprehension. Thus, brainstorming techniques have specifically admonished people ‘not to criticize’ their own and others' ideas, a tenet that has gone unexamined. In contrast, there is research showing that dissent, debate and competing views have positive value, stimulating divergent and creative thought. Perhaps more importantly, we suggest that the permission to criticize and debate may encourage an atmosphere conducive to idea generation. In this experimental study, traditional brainstorming instructions, including the advice of not criticizing, were compared with instructions encouraging people to debate—even criticize. A third condition served as a control. This study was conducted both in the United States and in France. Results show the value of both types of instruction, but, in general, debate instructions were superior to traditional brainstorming instructions. Further, these findings hold across both cultures. Results are discussed in terms of the potential positive value of encouraging debate and controversy for idea generation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.