Group Idea Generation and Creativity (chpt. 6) Flashcards
Generating Ideas (Paulus & Brown, 2007)
A cognitive process that involves retrieving relevant info (from long-term memory) and combining the info in working memory
Divided Attention
Attending to one’s own idea generation
Attending to others’ ideas
Attending to social conventions (turn-taking, etiquette, etc.)
Brainstorming (Osborn, 1953)
based of 2 principles deferment of judgement and quality breeds quantity. Osborn’s idea that group would be more productive than individuals
The principles:
Don’t evaluate right away
The more the ideas, the better (additive, maximizing task) better quality idea will result
Third principle: Osborn also suggested that brainstorming should be done in groups because of the potential for cognitive stimulation
Real & Nominal Groups
real groups to the performance of nominal groups. Nominal groups are groups in name only with no interaction among group members nominal groups consist of members who work individually and whose ideas are pooled
REAL GROUPS are not as creative as NOMINAL (only can come up with one idea non- redundant ideas) groups
REAL groups attend to not do well quantity and quality then NOMINAL GROUPS
Diehl & Stroebe 1987 & Mullen 1991
Productivity/process loss and the Ringelmann effect is found among brainstorming groups
Ringelmann effect: productivity loss increasing with group size)
Diehl and Stroebe (1987)
2x2 First Condition Production Loss
Idea generation: had individual evaluated vs. group evaluated
Results: real vs. nominal group difference still existed (productivity loss) > accountability effect
Weak evidence for motivation explanation
When individually evaluated Nominal group still did better
Nominal groups work individually Real groups work more together
2x2 Second Condition Coordination loss
Idea generation judged (vs. not judged) through a one-way mirror
Results: real vs. nominal group difference still large (productivity loss)
Judge effect for both real and nominal groups
No support for evaluation apprehension explanation
Nominal group still did better
Downward matching Motivation Loss (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)
Although # of ideas generated became similar among group members, not necessarily similar to the least performing member.
So, “performance matching” rather than “downward matching”
Evaluation apprehension via interpersonal anxiousness
Camacho and Paulus (1995)
CAUSED BY COORDINATION LOSS
2x2 Third Condition
Nominal and real groups minimal based on anxious people and non anxious
Real vs. nominal groups comprised of either high or low anxiety ps.
Results: real vs. nominal group difference was greater for groups with high anxiety members.
High anxiety ps reported more nervousness and withheld ideas more.
Evaluation apprehension matters – especially for high anxiety people.
Production Blocking (Nijstad, 2003) CAUSED BY COORDINATION LOSS
as group members wait for their turn to speak -> forget own ideas, not think of new ideas (“cognitive interference”
Diehl and Stroebe (1987) again:
Ps generated less ideas in real groups and in groups where “traffic light” dictated speaking turn – compared to when they were in nominal groups or when they were told to ignore “traffic light”
4th Condition
Involved a third Nominal group they were manipulated using lights individuals had microphones when red light came on they stopped speaking the the green light allowed them to speak the fourth Nominal group ignored the light. The traffic light nominal group performed the same as the real group
Productivity gain via stimulation
When there is no production blocking involved, listening to other group members’ ideas stimulates more ideas.
Electronic brainstorming system (EBS) prevents blocking (Gallupe et al., 1991).
EBS found to lead to productivity gains – same with passing around ideas written on slips of paper, or “brainwriting” (Dugosh et al., 2000; Paulus & Yang, 2000).
Key: giving attention to other members’ ideas (via memory task instruction; Dugosh et al., 2000)
Electronic brainstorming system (EBS)
minimizing production loss and creates production gains
EBS found to lead to productivity gains – same with passing around ideas written on slips of paper, or “brainwriting
Key: giving attention to other members’ ideas (via memory task instruction; Dugosh et al., 2000)
Reading ideas on a PC screen can stimulate one’s own idea generation by making it easier (quicker) to switch to a new train of thought (Nijstad et al., 2000) – as quick as continuing with same train of thought.
EBS also reduces cognitive load (the many ideas are on the screen for one to read)
Generating ideas
Memory is associative: ideas related to already generated ideas tend to be retrieved (“train of thought”).
“common” ideas tend to be retrieved earlier, and one can get “stuck” with those ideas
Also, when people are shown “examples” early on, they constrain the type of ideas subsequently generated (Smith, 2003).
Also, unrelated discussion interferes with idea generation.
Incubation time
Thus, stimulating and switching to new trains of thoughts by being exposed to other ideas is helpful.
It is important to have “incubation time” to combine other ideas with one’s own knowledge and ideas (Paulus & Brown, 2007)
Taking breaks help
Also, taking breaks allows one to overcome fixating on a limited range of ideas
Other people’s ideas can interfere with one’s idea generation (and current train of thought) when those ideas are not associated with ideas in one’s semantic network (memory).
Other people discussing things I have no knowledge about.
High rate of idea generation leads to persistence
Generating many ideas promotes group members to continue generating ideas (persistence)
The rate of idea generation can function as a “signal” to continue or stop.
Illusion of group productivity
People report more satisfaction after brainstorming in groups than alone.
At least I generate as many ideas as the next person.” (satisfaction with own performance via social comparison)
Sometimes, overestimate own performance (fuzzy memories for who originated an idea)
Fewer failures for generating new ideas (by being able to listen to others’ ideas)
Idea quality Nominal vs. real groups Diehl & Stroebe, 1987
Number of good ideas positively correlated with total number of ideas generated Selecting good ideas:
Quality of selected ideas were similar across nominal and real groups.
Also, idea quality was similar between selected ideas and generated ideas (Rietzschel et al., 2006).
Group Creativity
Group members should think independently and uniquely (rather than conform to norms; Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007).
Paulus (1993)
argued that group members have the opportunity to compare their performance with that of other members social comparisons
Idea Quality on two dimensions
The 2 dimensions most often used to evaluate the quality of ideas are originality and feasibility. An idea can be high or low on both these dimensions creating 4 possibilities bad idea’s (low originality, low feasibility) conventional idea’s (low originality, high feasibility) crazy idea’s (high originality, low feasibility) good ideas (high originality, high feasibility)
Taggar (2002)
Research model that group processes affect the relation between individual creativity and group creativity a strong relation with effective group processes a weak relation without effective group processes is directed at the arrow linking individual creativity to group creativity when one variable affects the relation between 2 variables
Alternative Nominal group technique (NGT)
Members write ideas individually without talking to each other (10~15 minutes).
Members share their ideas one-by-one.
The group discusses each idea, focusing primarily on clarification of the idea.
Each member chooses and ranks the best five solutions. The leader collects this info, averages the rankings to yield a group decision.
Voting/Revoting.
NGT
NGT groups produce more ideas and also report feeling more satisfied with the process than unstructured groups (at least when groups discuss highly emotional issues).
The individual writing phase (Step 1) minimizes evaluation concerns.
Group is able to discuss differences and misunderstandings through the interaction phase (Steps 2 and 3).
Overall, NGT provides a balance between task concerns and socioemotional concerns.
Limitations:
NGT meetings typically can focus on only one topic.
Members can feel uncomfortable in following this highly structured format.
Communication in groups & Communication network
Regular patterns of information exchange among members of a group.
Can be organized formally or emerge over time informally.
Informal communication networks tend to coincide with status relations and attraction relations.
Communication networks influence group performance and other group outcomes.
M.I.T Studies Shaw 1964, 1978
Created different types of network by seating male participants at a table with individual partitions, and opening up certain partitions.
Examples: “wheel,” “pinwheel,” “circle,” “comcon”
Group problem solving task: Each participant carried a card with five symbols. There task was to identify the symbol that was shared by all.
