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).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story

Previous research on brainstorming and related idea-generating techniques has generally found interacting groups to produce fewer ideas than equivalent numbers of individuals working alone whose ideas are later pooled (i.e., nominal groups). In this paper we report four experiments. The first three contrast groups of various sizes using a computer-based idea generation system to equivalently sized nominal groups. The results of these experiments were consistent; large groups using a computer-based idea generation system outperformed equivalent nominal groups in idea-generating tasks. A fourth experiment is then reported which tests the primary hypothesis as to why groups using the computer-based idea generation system outperformed nominal groups. This study concluded that the elimination of production blocking in the computer-based groups (a problem common in groups that communicate verbally where only one member of the group can speak at a time) accounts for a significant portion of the enhanced productivity for the computer-based groups.     

Reintroduction of Odor Combined with Cognitive Stimulation Supports Creative Ideation via Memory Retrieval Mechanisms

Brainstorming is a widely used method for generating creative ideas. There is an interest in various techniques contributing to it; nevertheless, research examining the influence of an aromatic odor as a facilitator has been scarce. Two experiments were conducted for this purpose. In Experiment I, a mandarin odor was presented with either stimulating (relevant) or non-stimulating (irrelevant) words prior to the brainstorming session, then re-presented during it. The findings showed that re-presenting the odor during brainstorming increased flexible and unique ideas through retrieval of stimulating words from memory. Flexibility also played a mediator role between mandarin odor and unique ideas. In Experiment II, odor presentation times were changed. It was presented prior to brainstorming, during it or both. The first odor presentation enhanced idea generation only when there was a second odor presentation. The findings suggested that it was the combination of the odors, presented before (and alongside a list of stimulating words) and during brainstorming, that contributed to the use of stimulating words during brainstorming. These two experiments revealed the role of mandarin odor on flexible thinking and idea generation via memory retrieval. Moreover, the odor increased recalling performance, even when the stimuli were given implicitly and recently learned.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

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.