Research Report: The Effectiveness of Multiple Dialogues in Electronic Brainstorming

Members of brainstorming groups often pursue the same set of ideas rather than considering a wide and diverse range of ideas, which may reduce the number of ideas they produce. One way to reduce this cognitive inertia may be to encourage groups to engage in several simultaneous discussions or dialogues. This experiment, which studied groups brainstorming electronically, found that groups generated more ideas, more high-quality ideas, and more novel ideas when using multiple dialogues than when using single dialogues.

[1]  J. Hackman,et al.  Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups , 1974 .

[2]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Skill Acquisition: Compilation of Weak-Method Problem Solutions. , 1987 .

[3]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[4]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity , 1993 .

[5]  J. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Numerical and Logical Group Size on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1995 .

[6]  G. Pitz,et al.  Procedures for eliciting choices in the analysis of individual decisions , 1980 .

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

[8]  Christian Wagner,et al.  Stimulating ideas through creativity software , 1994 .

[9]  Robert W. Weisberg,et al.  Problem solving and creativity , 1988 .

[10]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[11]  Marshall Scott,et al.  Microlevel Structuration in Computer-Supported Group Decision Making , 1992 .

[12]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[13]  J. Anderson,et al.  Automaticity and the ACT* theory. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

[14]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Implications for problem‐solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: A critical review of the literature , 1978 .

[15]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic Meeting Support: The GroupSystems Concept , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[16]  A. Dennis,et al.  When a Group Is Not a Group , 1993 .

[17]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[18]  John R. Anderson.  The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[19]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[20]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[21]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Comprehensiveness and restrictiveness in group decision heuristics: effects of computer support on consensus decision making , 1989, ICIS '89.

[22]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Social influence processes in group brainstorming. , 1993 .

[23]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[24]  R. Brent Gallupe,et al.  Blocking electronic brainstorms. , 1994 .

[25]  Mark S. Silver,et al.  Decision Support Systems: Directed and Nondirected Change , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[27]  P. Paulus,et al.  The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming , 1995 .

[28]  J. Armstrong.  The Use of the Decomposition Principle in Making Judgments , 1975 .

[29]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .