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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Group Creativity and Technology

Despite the popularity of brainstorming, research has shown that verbal brainstorming is not always effective in increasing group creativity. On the other hand, its electronic counterpart, electronic brainstorming, appears to produce much better results. Is technology the panacea for group idea generation? This paper first reviews the theory of group creativity and then examines the characteristics of electronic brainstorming that makes it more effective than verbal brainstorming. From the success of electronic brainstorming, it then argues that the use of technology might be the key to overcome the space and time constraints that are commonly faced by creativity groups.     

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。     

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.     

AN EXPLORATION OF COMMUNICATION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN REAL BRAINSTORMING GROUPS

This study analyzed the performance of individuals in real brainstorming groups in an attempt to determine the relationship between individual ideational output, perceptions of status within the group, and communication apprehension. Results of a multiple discriminant analysis suggest that persons who are high producers of ideas perceive fewer status differences among group members, perceive themselves as high status group members and are less apprehensive as communicators than those persons low in productivity. The linear combination of discriminating variables was able to successfully classify over 75% of the subjects into their actual output group.     

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 versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review

In the experiments reviewed in this article the subjects are asked to produce ideas that are relevant to a given task request (e.g., possible consequences of a hypothetical event). After describing the specific task material and the performance measures used in the relevant research studies, some analytic background is given by outlining the cognitive resources required in this kind of experimental task and by listing the various factors that may come into play when subjects perform in groups (with discussion) instead of individually. We then review the studies comparing individual and group performance. In all of these experiments the subjects were asked to work according to the rules of brainstorming, which prescribe that participants refrain from evaluating their ideas. This procedure purportedly results in superior group, relative to individual, performance. However, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that subjects brainstorming in small groups produce fewer ideas than the same number of subjects brainstorming individually. Less clear evidence is available on measures of quality, uniqueness and variety. The discussion considers factors that may be responsible for this inferiority of groups. The role of social inhibition receives particular attention also in terms of suggestions for research. Apart from the group-individual comparison we review the existing research concerning factors that may influence group performance on idea-generation tasks.     

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.     

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.     

Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?

Production blocking (group members must take turns expressing their ideas) is an important cause of productivity loss in brainstorming groups. However, it is not yet clear why production blocking has this detrimental effect. We hypothesized that delays between the generation and articulation of ideas, arising when group members wait for their turns, interfere with the cognitive process of generating ideas. In three experiments, production blocking was simulated for individuals working at computer terminals. Production blocking interfered with idea generation in two ways. First, it disrupted the organization of idea generation when delays were relatively long. Second, it reduced the flexibility of idea generation when delays were unpredictable. Implications for group information processing are discussed.     

The Role of Attitudes in Reactions Toward Diversity in Workgroups1

The present study examined attitudes toward diversity as a moderator of outcomes of diversity in workgroups. Two studies were conducted that focused on the development of the Attitudes Toward Diverse Workgroups Scale (ADWS) and on the impact of diversity attitudes on task performance and psychological reactions in actual face‐to‐face diverse brainstorming groups. The first study supported the internal consistency and stability of the ADWS and revealed that it was related, in the predicted way, to the Big Five and general prejudice. The second study revealed that high scores on the productive and affective dimensions of the ADWS enhanced brainstorming performance (quality of ideas) in actual diverse groups and positive psychological reactions to the group experiences, respectively.