ArticlePublisher preview available

Productivity Loss In Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle

American Psychological Association
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

We conducted four experiments to investigate free riding, evaluation apprehension, and production blocking as explanations of the difference in brainstorming productivity typically observed between real and nominal groups. In Experiment 1, we manipulated assessment expectations in group and individual brainstorming. Although productivity was higher when subjects worked under personal rather than collective assessment instructions, type of session still had a major impact on brainstorming productivity under conditions that eliminated the temptation to free ride. Experiment 2 demonstrated that inducing evaluation apprehension reduced productivity in individual brainstorming. However, the failure to find an interaction between evaluation apprehension and type of session in Experiment 3 raises doubts about evaluation apprehension as a major explanation of the productivity loss in brainstorming groups. Finally, by manipulating blocking directly, we determined in Experiment 4 that production blocking accounted for most of the productivity loss of real brainstorming groups. The processes underlying production blocking are discussed, and a motivational interpretation of blocking is offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
1987,
Vat.
53, No.
3.497-509
Copyright
1987
by the
American
Psychological
Association,
Inc.
0022-3514/87/500.75
Productivity
Loss
In
Brainstorming
Groups:
Toward
the
Solution
of a
Riddle
Michael
Diehl
and
Wolfgang
Strpebe
Universitat
Tubingen,
Tubingen,
Federal Republic
of
Germany
We
conducted
four
experiments
to
investigate
free
riding,
evaluation
apprehension,
and
production
blocking
as
explanations
of the
difference
in
brainstorming
productivity
typically
observed
between
real and
nominal
groups.
In
Experiment
1, we
manipulated
assessment
expectations
in
group
and
individual
brainstorming.
Although
productivity
was
higher
when
subjects
worked
under
personal
rather
than
collective
assessment
instructions,
type
of
session
still
had a
major
impact
on
brainstorm-
ing
productivity
under
conditions
that
eliminated
the
temptation
to
free
ride.
Experiment
2
demon-
strated
that
inducing
evaluation
apprehension
reduced
productivity
in
individual
brainstorming.
However,
the
failure
to find an
interaction
between
evaluation
apprehension
and
type
of
session
in
Experiment
3
raises
doubts
about
evaluation
apprehension
as a
major
explanation
of the
productiv-
ity
loss
in
brainstorming
groups.
Finally,
by
manipulating
blocking
directly,
we
determined
in
Exper-
iment
4
that
production
blocking
accounted
for
most
of the
productivity
loss
of
real
brainstorming
groups.
The
processes
underlying
production
blocking
are
discussed,
and a
motivational
interpreta-
tion
of
blocking
is
offered.
In
his
influential
book,
Osborn
(1957)
suggested brainstorm-
ing
as a
method
of
group problem solving that considerably
in-
creases
the
quality
and
quantity
of
ideas produced
by
group
members. Brainstorming groups
are
traditionally
given
instruc-
tions designed
to
free
the
individual members
from
the
inhibit-
ing
effects
of
self-criticism
and the
criticism
by
others during
the
problem-solving session.
The
rules behind brainstorming
are as
follows:
keep
in
mind that
the
more ideas
the
better
and
the
wilder
the
ideas
the
better,
improve
or
combine
ideas
al-
ready
suggested;
and do not be
critical.
Osborn
(1957)
claimed
that
if
these rules
are
followed
"the
average person
can
think
up
twice
as
many ideas when
working
with
a
group than
when
working
alone"
(p.
229).
Taylor,
Berry,
and
Block
(1958)
were
the first to
test
Osborn's
claim
in a
study
in
which subjects
were
asked
to
brainstorm
for
a
period
of
12
min
either
individually
or in
4-person
groups.
To
allow
for a
statistical
comparison between
results
from
individ-
ual and
group
sessions,
nominal groups
were
formed
from
sub-
jects
who had
brainstormed
individually.
For
each nominal
group
the
ideas
of 4
subjects were combined, eliminating
re-
dundant ideas
by
counting only once
any
idea that
had
been
suggested several
times.
Thus,
the
scores
of
nominal groups
rep-
resent the
level
of
productivity
one
would expect
if
group inter-
action
neither facilitated
nor
inhibited group productivity. Con-
trary
to
Osborn's
claim,
Taylor
et
al.
found
that nominal groups
produced nearly twice
as
many
different
ideas
as the
real
groups. This
finding
has
since been
frequently
replicated.
Of
The
authors
are
indebted
to
Thomas
Ostrom,
Kenneth
Gergen,
and
Margaret
Stroebe
for
helpful
comments
on an
earlier
draft
of
this
paper.
We
are
also
grateful
to
Riidiger
Arnscheid,
Claudia
Brand),
and
Christ!
Fischer
for
their
help
in
collecting
some
of the
data.
Correspondence
concerning
this
article
should
be
addressed
to Mi-
chael
Diehl,
Psychologisches
Institut,
Universitat
Tubingen,
D-74
Tu-
bingen,
Federal
Republic
of
Germany.
the
22
experiments listed
in
Table
1,18
reported
the
perfor-
mance
of
nominal groups
to be
superior
to
that
of
real groups,
and
only
4, all
involving
2-person
groups (Cohen,
Whitmyre,
&
Funk,
1960; Pape
&
Bolle,
1984;
Torrance,
1970,
Experiments
1
and 2),
reported
no
difference.
Results
have
been more equivocal
with
regard
to
quality
of
ideas.
Of the few
studies that assessed
quality,
most
have
re-
ported
a
measure
of
lota!
quality
(i.e.,
the sum of the
quality
ratings
of the
ideas produced
by a
given
subject
or
group).
Be-
cause
the
total
quality
is
highly
related
to the
number
of
ideas,
some authors
have
preferred
to use
average
quality.
However,
as
brainstorming
is
assumed
to
increase
the
production
of
good
ideas,
the
number
of
good ideas appears
to be a
more
appropri-
ate
measure
of
quality.
Consequently,
in
these studies that
re-
ceived
a
score above
a
chosen
cutoff
point
on a
scale
of
quality
ratings
was
classified
as
"good."
Finally, some studies
have
as-
sessed
the
number
of
unique
or
original ideas,
having
used
the
frequency
with
which
the
idea
is
suggested
as a
criterion.
The findings for
quality
appear
to be
heavily
dependent
on
the
type
of
measure used:
In all six
studies that assessed
total
quality,
nominal groups performed better than real groups did.
No
consistent pattern emerged
for the
other measures. Among
those studies,
findings
were
not
only
inconsistent between stud-
ies
but
even
within
the
same
study,
if
several topics,
subject
groups,
or
experimental
conditions
had
been used.
Theories
of
Productivity
Loss
in
Brainstorming
Groups
In
view
of the
accumulation
of
evidence
for the
superior
pro-
ductivity
of
nominal groups,
at
least
in
terms
of the
quantity
of
ideas produced,
it is
surprising that
the
reasons
for
their superi-
ority
have
so far not
been
explained.
The
three major
interpre-
tations that
have
been
offered
to
account
for the
lower produc-
tivity
of
real groups
are
production
blocking,
evaluation
appre-
hension,
and
free
riding.
In the first
part
of
this
article,
we
discuss these interpretations
in
light
of
existing
evidence.
In the
497
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
... Higher education centers on developing creative confidence because students need faith in their creative abilities for innovation classes, design thinking, and problem-based learning settings [13,14]. The presence of an AI "team member" may reduce students' fear of negative evaluation [15], thereby promoting broader participation, particularly among introverted or less experienced individuals. Nevertheless, the widespread reliance on AI brings new risks that threaten human control of decision-making processes while simultaneously reducing critical assessment and causing ideas to become rigid [1,16]. ...
... Research has consistently shown that teambased creativity can be limited by social and structural barriers. One common issue is evaluation apprehension-the fear of being judged by others, which can prevent people from sharing bold or unconventional ideas [15]. Another is production blocking, which occurs when turn-taking or dominant voices prevent everyone from contributing equally, especially those who are more introverted or unsure [19,20]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This mixed-methods study investigates the role of GenAI in enhancing collaborative creativity among university students, focusing on divergent thinking, team dynamics, and evaluation apprehension. Fifty undergraduate students enrolled in a communication skills course were divided into control (non-AI) and experimental (AI-supported) groups to perform the Alternative Uses Task (AUT), a divergent thinking exercise. Quantitative analysis of creative outputs revealed that AI-assisted teams significantly outperformed non-AI groups across all metrics: fluency (22.8 vs. 15.2), flexibility (11.6 vs. 8.4), originality (7.9 vs. 6.1), and elaboration (24.5 vs. 18.3), indicating AI's capacity to augment idea generation and development. Qualitative thematic analysis of students' reflections highlighted AI's dual role in fostering inclusivity by reducing evaluation apprehension (reported by 80% of participants), while introducing challenges such as cognitive fixation on AI-generated ideas (45%) and role ambiguity, where AI was perceived as a dominant "team leader" (30%). Students noted that AI fostered participation but risked overshadowing human agency and critical engagement. These findings underscored that GenAI's potential as a cognitive collaborator in educational settings enhances creative output and psychological safety, yet emphasize the need for pedagogical frameworks that balance AI integration with strategies to mitigate over-reliance. Implications for higher education and future human-AI research are provided.
... Studies in brainstorming however, mainly discuss the conducting principles and suggest the possible variations in conducting brainstorming. For example, Cross (1994) addressed some conducting principles, while the other researchers addressed the conducting procedures and key points for the successful conduction [17][18] [19] Also, many studies focus on the variation of brainstorming [20][21] [22] Nevertheless, these studies provided neither consolidated analysis nor comparable results proving the gain of effective performance and giving little intelligence about the way to evaluate the effectiveness of brainstorming [3][4] [5]. Similar to the notices from previous literature [6][7] [17][18], Hsu, et al (2003) argued that the interaction between the leader and the participants are important to the success of brainstorming, which could indicates that the affordness of communication tools could play dominatingly to the success of brainstorming in the case where the participants are separately at a distance. ...
... 51 Still, it can support creativity, 52,53 as a partner. 54,55 However, group collaboration is complex, and GAI's role in managing cognitive load remains uncertain. Overreliance may lead to reduced individual input, the "free-riding" effect 56 as some rely too much on GAI, 57 lowering group performance. ...
... The difficulty of building trust in virtual settings is particularly salient for group creativity. Research on group creativity in face-to-face settings has shown that the creative process is negatively affected by a number of social factors (Diehl and Stroebe 1987), including evaluation apprehension, where individuals hold back contributions for fear that others may negatively evaluate them (Camacho and Paulus 1995;Rietzschel et al. 2006). The development of trusting relationships between group members can be seen to reverse these negative effects, as individuals are more likely to share creative ideas (Han et al. 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Recent research has shown that virtual settings can negatively impact interactions within groups. However, few empirical studies have looked at group creative processes in virtual teams, with most research to date focusing on individuals. To address this gap, an experimental study was carried out to compare the creative performance of groups in face‐to‐face versus virtual environments. 54 groups, each comprised of four individuals, completed two creativity tests interposed with an activity that was designed to familiarize members of the group with each other. The groups were split equally between face‐to‐face and virtual video‐based settings. It was seen in all groups that creative fluency decreased, whilst the originality of ideas generated/selected increased after groups completed a familiarization task. It was further found that the creative fluency of groups was significantly lower in virtual compared to face‐to‐face environments. By negatively impacting the fluency of the creative process in groups, it is therefore argued that virtual interactions have negative consequences for the number of ideas generated within groups.
... To respond to this situation, a number of participatory self-determination processes have been experimented with (Franklin & Ebdon, 2007). However, research has shown that these processes are often perceived as lengthy, inconclusive and exhausting, and in some cases, they generate frustration and disempowerment (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Furthermore, psychological research shows the deteriorating quality of decisions made after long decision-making sessions. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents the Legislative Rainbow Model, an innovative drama-based approach to self-legislation of small groups. We systematise the approach and discuss its application in three case studies from Australia and Italy. We identify three methodological aspects that make this model a distinctively unique approach to promoting the well-being of small groups: it does not focus on the declared conflictive situation and explores the community’s underlying emotions and fears, it supports the parties in assuming their responsibility in co-creating the conflict and adopts self-legislation as a way to honour the life of the community in the here and now.
Chapter
This article investigates the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into the creative processes of undergraduate graphic design students. The research explores the influence of AI on team dynamics within the brainstorming ideation process and its impact on the dimensions of design quality. With the growing adoption of AI tools in the creative industries, this article highlights the need for graphic design educators to embrace AI assistance in learning to enable an increased focus on the practice of sense-making.
Chapter
Context: The shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the long-standing challenge of conducting engaging and productive sprint retrospectives. This transition has introduced new complexities, including decreased team trust, the loss of valuable non-verbal communication, and reduced brainstorming effectiveness. Objective: Our research investigates strategies to improve remote retrospectives for Scrum teams experiencing low engagement and reluctance to provide constructive feedback. Method: Through three Action Research cycles, we sequentially introduced and evaluated retrospective games, anonymous feedback, and continuous issue documentation throughout the sprint. Results: The introduction of games demonstrably increased meeting engagement and active participation, while anonymity created a more secure environment for more comprehensive and honest feedback. Furthermore, continuous reflection helped ensure that critical issues were not overlooked and promoted proactive, real-time problem-solving. A replication study with a Kanban team at a different company supported the positive impact of games and anonymity but showed mixed results regarding continuous issue documentation. Conclusion: This research adds to the existing knowledge on agile software development in remote settings, offering actionable strategies for agile practitioners to improve their continuous improvement practices. Our results underscore that remote retrospectives can be effective but require adaptations to address the inherent challenges of virtual environments, such as lower engagement and trust. These adaptations should be tailored to the unique context and needs of each team.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigates the impact of internet access on creativity and identifies potential hidden costs of internet use for groups. Using the alternative uses task, we randomized participants ( N = 244) into separate conditions to generate ideas for nonstandard uses for one of two common objects—a shield or an umbrella—either with or without internet access. Nominal group analysis reveals that while individual creativity may be enhanced by internet access, groups articulate fewer novel solutions when provided internet access, suggesting that internet access may constrain collective creative fluency. We also ran a reanalysis of previous data sets on creativity and internet use and found robust converging evidence across different paradigms, coders, and contexts. We further explore robustness by examining alternative operationalizations of fluency: quality of responses, as measured by coders’ evaluations of effectiveness, novelty, and subjective evaluations of creativity. While overall trends suggest an advantage for subjects who do not have internet access, this patterning depends to some degree on variation among coders. Implications for the way digital tools influence creative processes are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Three experiments tested the hypothesis that group members exert less effort as the perceived dispensability of their efforts for group success increases. The resultant motivation losses were termed "free-rider effects." In Exp I, 189 undergraduates of high or low ability performed in 2-, 4-, or 8-person groups at tasks with additive, conjunctive, or disjunctive demands. As predicted, member ability had opposite effects on effort under disjunctive and conjunctive task demands. The failure to obtain a relationship between group size and member effort in Exp I was attributed to a procedural artifact eliminated in Exp II (73 Ss). As predicted, as groups performing conjunctive and disjunctive tasks increased in size, member motivation declined. This was not a social loafing effect; group members were fully identifiable at every group size. Exp III (108 Ss) explored the role that performance feedback plays in informing group members of the dispensability of their efforts and encouraging free riding. Results are generally consistent with those of Exps I and II. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
In the formation of creative thinking groups, how well does brainstorming work? 48 Ss were divided into trained and untrained samples; and cohesive, noncohesive, and "nominal" subgroups of 2 persons each were formed, based on sociometric choice. Several hypothetical problems were discussed. An analysis of variance statistical technique was used to compare number of responses and number of unique responses between the groups. "Brainstorming by pairs of superior adults will produce more unique ideas when the groups are trained in the method and composed of people who like to brainstorm together. This is true, however, only when they are working on ego-involving problems." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Assigned 96 undergraduates to 8 treatments in a 2 * 2 * 2 analysis of variance in which the factors were videotape training, practice, and individual vs. group brainstorming. Ss were asked to generate ways that individuals might influence United States foreign policy. Significant interactions were found between videotape training and practice and between videotape training and individual vs. group brainstorming. Expected facilitation of performance through videotape training did not materialize. Group practice followed by individual brainstorming produced the largest number of ideas. The general superiority of individuals over groups appears even more pronounced when the problem is real and motivation is high. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Tested the hypothesis that performance in the group situation is inhibited as a result of group members' anticipation that their ideas will be critically evaluated by fellow group members. 152 undergraduates participated in 4-member groups. Ss brainstorming alone were led to anticipate immediate or delayed evaluation regarding either the quality of their ideas or content-free morphemic aspects of their speech. Their performance was compared to performance in group and individual brainstorming control conditions. Results show that the 4 evaluation conditions did not differ significantly among themselves or from the individual control condition, although each of these 5 conditions yielded a significantly higher number of nonoverlapping ideas per 4-person nominal group than the number produced by real 4-member groups. This pattern held for both a socially irrelevant "thumbs" problem and an energy conservation problem. Results suggest that anticipated evaluation does not exert an inhibitory influence on brainstorming productivity. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Hypothesized that when working on a single problem, the combination of individual and group sessions would lead to more solutions than only individual or only group sessions. Dividing 128 Ss into 32 real and nominal work groups, the hypothesis was not confirmed. Instead, the individual production of ideas was found to be superior to either group production or the combination of group and individual production (p < .05). The production of ideas appears to be simply related to the proportion of time spent working alone. Possible explanations are discussed and areas for future research are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Comparability of performances within four-person groups was manipulated in a brainstorming task. Crossed with this manipulation of evaluation potential, participants' outputs either were individually identifiable or were pooled. Replicating previous social-loafing research (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979), when outputs were identifiable, participants generated more uses than when their outputs were pooled. However, this difference emerged only when participants believed that their individual outputs could be evaluated through comparison with their co-workers' performances. When participants believed that their individual outputs were not comparable and thus could not be evaluated, there was no difference in the number of uses generated by participants whose outputs were identifiable and those whose outputs were pooled. These data suggest that to eliminate social loafing participants must feel not only that their outputs are individually identifiable as suggested by Williams, Harkins, and Latane (1981), but also that these outputs can be evaluated through comparison with the outputs of their co-workers.
Article
In an experiment designed to answer the title question, twelve groups of four men each and forty-eight individuals followed the four basic rules of brainstorming in attacking the same three problems in the same order. Upon completion of the experiment, a table of random numbers was used to divide the forty-eight individual subjects into twelve nominal groups of four men each. The performance of each nominal group was then scored as though its members had actually worked together. The achievement of these nominal groups thus provided a measure of the performance to be expected if group participation neither facilitates nor inhibits creative thinking. When compared with that of the twelve nominal groups, the performance of the twelve real groups was found to be markedly inferior with respect to: (a) mean total number of ideas produced; (b) mean number of unique ideas produced; (c) three different measures which weighted the ideas produced differentially with respect to quality. To the extent that the results of the present experiment can be generalized, it must be concluded that group participation when using brainstorming inhibits creative thinking.
Article
Conducted a study of 128 male undergraduates to investigate the effects of relevant and irrelevant tasks and task consequences on individual and group brainstorming performance. As hypothesized, significantly fewer ideas were produced by groups than by individuals, and by Ss working on an inherently salient or "relevant" task, than on an innocuous or "irrelevant" task. The effect of knowing that the ideas might actually be used by a familiar organization depressed brainstorming effectiveness further. It is concluded that the ability to brainstorm was impaired when the task was one in which Ss were genuinely interested and which they cared about. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)