The paper provides both a historical view of brainstorming and the standpoint of the present research on this field. Starting with a definition of the concept, the findings of the American advertiser Alex Osborn will be then presented and discussed, as well as the several directions that the brainstorming literature acquired after this initial research.
The main focus of the paper will be the Social / Cognitive Influence Model of Performance of Group Brainstorming, proposed by Paulus et al., as well as some of the research conducted by this group of psychologists. However, other researchers will be quoted and their results compared and discussed.
At the end, some information will be given about a relatively recent way of brainstorming – Electronic brainstorming where some studies will be presented and the use of technology in group tasks will be discussed.
The final discussion will critically review the main points focussed throughout the project and deepen some questions about the brainstorming discussion.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Brainstorming – from Osborn to Gallupe
Osborn’s brainstorming rules
The study from M. Diehl & Wolfgang Stroebe (1987)
Social Comparison Processes – Festinger (1954)
The research of Paulus, Dzindolet & Camacho
The study from Gallupe et al. (1991)
Conclusions
References
Objectives and Topics
This work examines the psychological and social factors that influence the effectiveness of group brainstorming, specifically analyzing why interactive groups often struggle to outperform individuals working in isolation.
- Historical context of brainstorming and Osborn’s original rules.
- Analysis of productivity losses: production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing.
- Social comparison processes and their impact on group performance.
- The Social/Cognitive Influence Model of group brainstorming.
- Electronic brainstorming (EBS) as a technological solution to social influence problems.
Excerpt from the Book
The Study from M. Diehl & Wolfgang Stroebe (1987)
The starting point of this study were a few other previous studies which suggested that brainstorming groups were not necessarily more effective than the so-called nominal or face-to-face groups, where each individual brainstorms alone. Actually, in some of these studies, it was discovered that brainstorming groups were considerably less productive than other groups of the same size working individually. These findings had such an influence that even today many researchers are sceptical about the productivity of brainstorming groups. In 1998 in a book about group dynamics, under Kreativitätsaufgabe we can still read that “die kreative Ideenproduktion in kleinen Gruppen deutlich unter der von Einzelpersonen liegt” (Ardelt-Gattinger, Lechner & Schlögl: 1998: p. 261)
In their study Diehl & Stroebe suggested three types of mechanisms used to explain why interactive brainstorming groups do not perform as well as nominal groups - procedural, social psychological and economic. From these three causes given to account for the loss of productivity, the first two are the most important and will be the main target of our analysis.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides a historical perspective on brainstorming and sets the stage for exploring the Social/Cognitive Influence Model regarding group performance.
Brainstorming – from Osborn to Gallupe: Outlines the origins of brainstorming under Alex Osborn and tracks the subsequent research that identified its limitations.
Osborn’s brainstorming rules: Details the four foundational guidelines for brainstorming sessions intended to foster a free exchange of creative ideas.
The study from M. Diehl & Wolfgang Stroebe (1987): Examines the mechanisms—procedural, psychological, and economic—that lead to productivity losses in interactive groups.
Social Comparison Processes – Festinger (1954): Analyzes how members compare their performance to others, leading to either productive motivation or inhibitive tendencies like downward comparison.
The research of Paulus, Dzindolet & Camacho: Discusses the social and cognitive components involved in predicting group performance and potential strategies to improve it.
The study from Gallupe et al. (1991): Evaluates Electronic Brainstorming (EBS) as a method to reduce evaluation apprehension and production blocking.
Conclusions: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while group work offers rich information, it requires technological or structured facilitation to overcome inherent social inhibitors.
Key Words
Brainstorming, Group Performance, Production Blocking, Evaluation Apprehension, Social Loafing, Social Comparison, Nominal Groups, Electronic Brainstorming, Cognitive Influence, Social Influence, Idea Generation, Productivity Loss, Group Dynamics, Facilitation, Creativity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the effectiveness of brainstorming in groups versus individuals and identifies the psychological and social factors that influence group productivity.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include productivity losses, social comparison processes, the impact of group dynamics on creativity, and the application of electronic brainstorming.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to understand why interactive brainstorming groups often fail to meet the performance levels of individuals and to analyze the Social/Cognitive Influence Model.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The work utilizes a literature-based analysis of seminal psychological studies and experimental research models in the field of group dynamics.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers historical brainstorming rules, mechanisms of productivity loss like production blocking, social psychological influences, and the role of technology in group sessions.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include brainstorming, group performance, production blocking, social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and electronic brainstorming.
How does "production blocking" affect brainstorming?
It occurs when individuals must wait their turn to share ideas, causing them to forget ideas or decide not to share similar ones, which hinders group output.
What role does Electronic Brainstorming (EBS) play?
EBS acts as a technological solution to reduce negative social influences like evaluation apprehension and production blocking by allowing anonymous, parallel contributions.
How does social comparison influence group productivity?
It can either motivate members through competition (upward comparison) or inhibit performance through self-evaluation and the fear of social judgment (downward comparison).
- Citation du texte
- Joana Duarte (Auteur), 2008, Social influences in brainstorming groups, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/139164
