Group Idea Generation and Creativity (chpt. 6)

Question 1

Generating Ideas (Paulus & Brown, 2007)

Answer 1

A cognitive process that involves retrieving relevant info (from long-term memory) and combining the info in working memory

Question 2

Divided Attention

Answer 2

Attending to one’s own idea generation
Attending to others’ ideas
Attending to social conventions (turn-taking, etiquette, etc.)

Question 3

Brainstorming (Osborn, 1953)

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Real & Nominal Groups

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Diehl & Stroebe 1987 & Mullen 1991

Answer 5

Productivity/process loss and the Ringelmann effect is found among brainstorming groups

Ringelmann effect: productivity loss increasing with group size)

Question 6

Diehl and Stroebe (1987)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Downward matching Motivation Loss (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)

Answer 7

Although # of ideas generated became similar among group members, not necessarily similar to the least performing member.
So, “performance matching” rather than “downward matching”

Question 8

Evaluation apprehension via interpersonal anxiousness
Camacho and Paulus (1995)
CAUSED BY COORDINATION LOSS

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Production Blocking (Nijstad, 2003) CAUSED BY COORDINATION LOSS

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Productivity gain via stimulation

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

Electronic brainstorming system (EBS)

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

Generating ideas

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Incubation time

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

High rate of idea generation leads to persistence

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Illusion of group productivity

Answer 15

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)

Question 16

Idea quality Nominal vs. real groups Diehl & Stroebe, 1987

Answer 16

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).

Question 17

Group Creativity

Answer 17

Group members should think independently and uniquely (rather than conform to norms; Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007).

Question 18

Paulus (1993)

Answer 18

argued that group members have the opportunity to compare their performance with that of other members social comparisons

Question 19

Idea Quality on two dimensions

Answer 19

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)

Question 20

Taggar (2002)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Alternative Nominal group technique (NGT)

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

NGT

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Communication in groups & Communication network

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

M.I.T Studies Shaw 1964, 1978

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Different types of communicaton

Answer 25

Circle (decentralized): can talk to neighbors
Pinwheel(decentralized): one way communication
Comcon(decentralized): Everyone can talk
Wheel(centralized network): Can’t talk to each other, but one person

Question 26

Centralized networks

Answer 26

One person is at the center “hub” of communication as in the “wheel” – this person collects information, integrates it, and then sends it back to others.

Centralized networks were found to be more efficient in simple tasks – in terms of error rates, detection/correction of errors, time to find a solution, and performance improvement after practice.

ex.democracy

Question 27

Decentralized networks

Answer 27

“Each to all” pattern -> everybody communicates in all directions until somebody gets the correct answer.

In more complex tasks (such as math problems, sentence construction, and discussion), decentralized networks outperformed centralized ones.

Question 28

Information Saturation

Answer 28

A point at which an individual member can no longer efficiently manage the amount of information being communicated.
It is more likely for a person at the central hub position in a centralized group that is working on a complex problem.
The greater the saturation, the less efficient the group’s performance.
When the task is simple, centralized networks are more efficient than decentralized ones; however, when the task is complex, decentralized networks are superior.

Question 29

Downward communication

Answer 29

Content: Explanations and reasons of actions needed, suggestions, performance feedback, etc.

Question 30

Upward communication

Answer 30

Content: Factual information, requests for information, grievances, etc.
Fewer in number, briefer, more restricted.
Good news travels faster upward than bad news.

Question 31

Direct communication

Answer 31

explicitly verbalize actual intended meaning

Congruent messages

Question 32

Indirect communication

Answer 32

hide intended meaning in verbal communication
Incongruent messages
Helps maintain interpersonal harmony
Helps preserve face.

Discrepancy between verbalized speech and speaker’s intended meaning (Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003).
Indirectness in speech.
Also, affects the listener’s interpretation of speakers’ messages -> Going beyond the verbal communication and paying attention to message in social cues & nonverbal behaviors.

Emphasized in collectivistic, high-context cultures.

ex.sarcasm

Question 33

Communication Errors

Answer 33

Message “tuning”
Group members may send shorter, less complete messages to one another because they believe that they have shared knowledge or information, which is often overestimated (e.g., giving directions).

Message distortion
Intentionally distorting messages to make sure that they will be received favorably.

Biased interpretation
Hearing what you “want” to hear – especially for ambiguous messages

Perspective-taking failures
Egocentric basis in judgment of others (empathy gaps)
Depends on the state of the self

People who know something overestimate the extent to which others are aware of it (curse of knowledge).
“I thought you knew that.”

People believe that their thoughts and reasons are much more obvious (transparent) to others than is actually the case (illusion of transparency).
“Tap-out-a-favorite-song” study.
Leaders may think that they are perfectly clear.

Question 34

Uneven communication

Answer 34

In a typical four-person group, two members do over 70% of the talking.
In a typical six-person group, three members do over 86% of the talking.
Members who do most of the talking may not be the ones who are the most informative.

Question 35

Group communication climate

Answer 35

Cooperative/supportive
Honest communication
Directed towards the group’s task
No one trying to manipulate the group to dominate it
Conducive to increased productivity, cohesion, member satisfaction

Competitive/defensive
Distrust, threatening, competitive
Focus is on protecting the self and control

Question 36

Assertive behavior

Answer 36

Self-expressive, honest, direct, firm However, in some cultures may require indirectness -> “msg matching”
Respectful of others, unblaming
Tactful and diplomatic
Takes practice

Question 37

Implementing of Innovation

Answer 37

1. Combination of implementation-promoting policies and practices
2. Team or organizational climate
3. Managerial support
4. Finances
5. A learning orientation
6. Long-term time orientation

Implementation: skillful, consistent, and committed use of innovation

Innovation adoption is easier than its implementation

For example: buying the new running machine