Social and Cognitive Influences in Group Brainstorming: Predicting Production Gains and Losses

Abstract

The creation of novel ideas often takes place in social contexts. Past research on brainstorming and other types of group tasks have shown that groups often perform poorly in comparison to conditions in which tasks are done individually. Past reviews have evaluated various factors that may be responsible for the production losses in group brainstorming (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987;Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991;Stroebe & Diehl, 1994). We re-evaluate these factors in light of subsequent research in our laboratory and demonstrate conditions under which groups can perform quite well in comparison to similar groups of individuals (nominal groups). We present a comprehensive model for predicting production gains and losses. Research on cognitive and social factors that may enhance brainstorming in groups is summarized.

A new dynamical model of brainstorming: Linear, nonlinear, continuous (simultaneous) and impulsive (sequential) cases

“…The first tendency is that interactive groups as well as nominal groups typically tend to lower their idea generation performance over the later periods of the brainstorming session (Coskun, 2000;Nijstad et al, 2003;Paulus et al, 2002). This may reflect a reduced availability of ideas, a reduced motivation over time, or some degree of cognitive fixation (Smith, 1995).…”

“…This is due to the fact that matching occurs only in the upward fashion (i.e., the individuals will try to increase their performance when their performance is lower than that of group's average and they will not try to reduce their performance when their performance is higher than the average). (Brown & Paulus, 1996;Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Paulus, 2000;Paulus et al, 2002). The memory condition, finally, gives some complexity to the system by the introduction of cognitive processes.…”

“…These are evaluation apprehension or social anxiety (feeling of some fear in expressing the potential ideas in front of a group (Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Collaros & Anderson, 1969;Harari & Graham, 1975;Mullen et al, 1991)), free-riding or social loafing (the tendency to rely on the efforts of others to accomplish the task (Borgatta & Sales, 1953;Diehl & Stroebe, 1987;Karau & Williams, 1993;Kerr & Bruun, 1983;Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)), production blocking (the inability to express the ideas because someone else is talking: (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;Nijstad, Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 2003)), and downward matching (the tendency for group members to match their performance to the least productive member (Paulus et al, 2002;Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)). …”

“…Since the publication of Osborn's first influential book (Osborn, 1957), group brainstorming has become a widely used idea-generation method in many organizations in today's world (Parnes, 1992;Paulus, 2000;Paulus & Brown, 2003;Paulus, Dugosh, Dzindolet, Coskun, & Putman, 2002;Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). Osborn (1957) developed the four brainstorming rules as ways to improve group productivity or creativity: (1) criticism is ruled out; (2) freewheeling is welcome; (3) quantity is wanted over quality, and (4) improvement and combination of ideas are sought.…”

Everyoone has a part to play : games and participatory design in healthcare

“…However, the number of results is also dependent on the conditions of the brainstorm. Paulus, Putman, Leggett Dugosh, Dzindolet, and Coskun (2002) researched under which circumstances group brainstorms produce more, more varied, and better ideas than a "nominal" group of individuals who brainstorm individually. The negative social influences for group brainstorming they found are evaluation apprehension (being concerned about one's ideas being evaluated), anonymity (when it is not clear who had what idea), and production blocking (not being able to think about one's own contribution because others are talking).…”