Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 09/1991; 61(3):392--403. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392

ABSTRACT Four experiments were conducted to identify the mechanisms that mediate the impact of production blocking on the productivity of idea-generating groups and to test procedural arrangements that could lessen its negative impact. Experiment 1 manipulated the length of group and individual sessions. Although Experiment 1 failed to find a closing of the productivity gap over time in equal man-hour comparisons, real 4-person groups produced more than nominal groups when given 4 times as much time. Because lengthening the time of session increases thinking as well as speaking time, speaking time was manipulated in Experiment 2. The finding that individuals who brainstormed for 20 min but were allowed to talk either for all or for only ƈ of the time did not differ in productivity eliminates differences in speaking time as an explanation of the productivity loss in idea-generating groups. In Experiments 3 and 4, procedural strategies to lessen the impact of blocking were examined.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New product ideation might be improved by identifying and applying certain well-defined schemes derived from an historical analysis of product-based trends, termed "templates." These templates might contribute to the understanding and prediction of new product emergence. The authors derive templates in a study that maps the evolution of product changes by adapting a set of intrinsic operations originally designed to uncover hidden logical patterns in technological inventions. They find that the majority of new product versions can be accounted for by as few as five templates. The authors define the five templates and show that they derive from six elementary (first principle) operators. A procedure for using the dominant template, termed "Attribute Dependency," is outlined, followed by a report of two experiments examining its usefulness in the context of product ideation.
    Journal of Marketing Research 05/1999; 36(2):200. DOI:10.2307/3152093 · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accumulated theories and research findings about the various attributes of groups and organizations that do creative problem solving (CPS) well, systems models of CPS activity that occurs in social settings, and efforts to measure and enhance joint CPS efforts are reviewed. Conclusions that can be drawn from this review about the nature of CPS and about the persons, groups, and organizations that do CPS well are discussed. A 'tri-level matching theory' is proposed as a way of integrating and explaining these findings. Creatively solvable problems vary widely in their complexity, knowledge needs, and the amounts of divergent and convergent thought that are needed, and so the theory predicts that persons, groups, and organizations with different preferences and abilities, knowledge and work arrangements will best match the character of particular problems. CPS research usually found individuals superior to groups, but this pattern of findings may have resulted from the tasks, concepts, and research methods used. Limitations in conceptualization, research methods, and resulting knowledge about collective CPS efforts are identified and discussed, and extensions of existing research as well as new directions for future study are proposed.
    Creativity Research Journal 07/1998; 11(3):199-229. DOI:10.1207/s15326934crj1103_2 · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The virtue of using nominal groups compared to brainstorming groups for idea generation is questionable. Brainstorming groups presumably will develop higher levels of cohesiveness than nominal groups following an idea generation task. Furthermore, the productivity of nominal groups is apt to be limited over time. Nominal (N = 31) and brainstorming (N = 28) groups of three or four members performed an idea generation task for two 10-minute periods. Brainstorming groups reported higher levels of cohesiveness than nominal groups. Furthermore, only during the first 10-minute period did nominal groups generate more ideas than brainstorming groups.
    01/2013; 78(1):42-55. DOI:10.1080/1041794X.2012.717684


Available from