Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency

In the experiments reviewed in this article the subjects are asked to produce ideas that are relevant to a given task request (e.g., possible consequences of a hypothetical event). After describing the specific task material and the performance measures used in the relevant research studies, some analytic background is given by outlining the cognitive resources required in this kind of experimental task and by listing the various factors that may come into play when subjects perform in groups (with discussion) instead of individually. We then review the studies comparing individual and group performance. In all ot these experiments the subjects were asked to work according to the rules of brainstorming, which prescribe that participants refrain from evaluating their ideas. This procedure purportedly results in superior group, relative to individual, performance. Ho.~ever, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that subjects brainstorming in small groups produce fewer ideas than the same number of subjects brainstorming individually. Less clear evidence is available on measures of quality, uniqueness and variety. The discussion considers factors that may be responsible for this inferiority of groups. The role of social inhibition receives particular attention also in terms of suggestions for research.··A.pa/:i"h·om the group-individual comparison we review the existing research concerning factors that may influence group performance on idea-generation tasks.

[1]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. , 1974 .

[2]  E. Ramsden Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[3]  Florence Vidal Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups , 1973 .

[4]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures. , 1972 .

[5]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups and individuals. , 1972, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence, Conformity Bias, and the Study of Active Minorities , 1972 .

[7]  I. Steiner Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[8]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  Conclusions: Toward an understanding of choice shifts in group discussion. , 1971 .

[9]  D. G. Pruitt Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. , 1971 .

[10]  J. C. Abric,et al.  Experimental study of group creativity: Task representation, group structure, and performance , 1971 .

[11]  E. Torrance,et al.  Influence of Dyadic Interaction on Creative Functioning , 1970, Psychological reports.

[12]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  R. Baron,et al.  Why do Groups Make Riskier Decisions Than Individuals?1 , 1970 .

[14]  G. Rotter,et al.  Group and Individual Effects in Problem Solving. , 1969 .

[15]  L. R. Anderson,et al.  Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  Personality, problem-solving procedure, and performance in small groups. , 1969 .

[17]  Victor H. Vroom,et al.  The consequences of social interaction in group problem solving , 1969 .

[18]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Effects of alcoholic beverages and their congener content on level and style of risk taking. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  A. Bandura Principles of behavior modification , 1969 .

[20]  P. Zimbardo The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

[21]  E B Gurman,et al.  Creativity as a Function of Orientation and Group Participation , 1968, Psychological reports.

[22]  H. Lindgren,et al.  Creativity, brainstorming, and orneriness: a cross-cultural study. , 1965, The Journal of social psychology.

[23]  G. A. Milton Enthusiasm vs Effectiveness in Group and Individual Problem-Solving , 1965 .

[24]  H. Lindgren,et al.  Brainstorming and Orneriness as Facilitators of Creativity , 1965, Psychological reports.

[25]  H. Triandis,et al.  Member Heterogeneity and Dyadic Creativity , 1965 .

[26]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. , 1965 .

[27]  L. R. Hoffman Group Problem Solving1 , 1965 .

[28]  J. B. Newman,et al.  SPOKEN AND WRITTEN EXPRESSION: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[29]  M. Parloff,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF CRITICALNESS ON CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING IN DYADS. , 1964, Psychiatry.

[30]  John K. Brilhart,et al.  Effects of different patterns on outcomes of problem-solving discussion. , 1964 .

[31]  Calvin W. Taylor,et al.  Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development. , 1965 .

[32]  John P. Campbell,et al.  The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for 2 industrial samples. , 1963 .

[33]  R. Ziller,et al.  Group creativity under conditions of success or failure and variations in group stability. , 1962 .

[34]  E. Weisskopf-Joelson,et al.  An experimental study of the effectiveness of brainstorming. , 1961 .

[35]  David Cohen,et al.  Effect of group cohesiveness and training upon creative thinking , 1961 .

[36]  W. Gordon Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity , 1961 .

[37]  H. W. Reese,et al.  Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. , 1959 .

[38]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  DOES GROUP PARTICIPATION WHEN USING BRAINSTORMING FACILITATE OR INHIBIT CREATIVE THINKING , 1958 .