How should a group organize itself to generate ideas? Should all group members work together as one intact group, should they form several smaller sub-groups that work independently, or should all members work separately as individuals without communicating? Research with verbal media presents a clear answer: all members should work separately without communicating. This paper examines this question for computer-mediated idea generation. In two separate studies, intact groups generated more ideas (with higher quality) than those working as individuals or in several smaller sub-groups. We attribute these differences to reduced blocking, and different social processes adopted in the different sized groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bouchard, T.J., Drauden, G. & Barsaloux, J. (1974a). Brainstorming procedure, group size and sex as determinants of the problem solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 135-138.
2.
Bouchard, T.J., Drauden, G. & Barsaloux, J. (1974b). A comparison of individual, subgroup and total group methods of problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(2): 226-227.
3.
Bouchard, T.J., Jr. & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 51-55.
4.
Bray, R.M., Kerr, N.L. & Atkin, R.S. (1978). Effects of group size, problem difficulty and sex on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 1224-1240.
5.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M. & Valacich, J.S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and criticism on idea generation in computer-mediated communication. Management Science, 36: 689-703.
6.
Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness in structural design. Management Science, 32: 554-571.
7.
Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S. & Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. (1990). An experimental investigation of group size in an electronic meeting system environment. IEEE Transactions on Sysiems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20: 1049-1057.
8.
DeSanctis, G. & Gallupe, R.B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision supportsystems. Management Science, 33: 589-609.
9.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 497-509.
10.
Fern, E.F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 1-13.
11.
Fisher, B.A. (1980). Small group decision making: Communication and thegroup process, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Fulk, J. & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17: 407-446.
13.
Fulk, J., Steinfield, C.W., Schmitz, J. & Power, J.G. (1987). A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14: 529-552.
14.
Gallupe, R.B., Bastianutti, L. & Cooper, W.H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 137-142.
15.
Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. & Bastianutti, L. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 350-369.
16.
Hackman, J.R. & Kaplin, R.E. (1974). Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups. Decision Sciences, 5: 459-480.
17.
Hackman, J.R. & Morris, C.G. (1976). Group tasks, group interaction processes and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press.
18.
Hackman, J.R. & Vidmar, N. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 33: 37-54.
19.
Hare, A.P. (1981). Group size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24: 695-708.
20.
Hegedus, D.M. & Rasmussen, R.V. (1986). Task effectiveness and interaction process of a modified nominal group technique in solving an evaluation problem. Journal of Management, 12: 545-560.
21.
Hill, G.W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one?Psychological Bulletin, 91: 517-539.
22.
Huber, G.P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technology on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15: 47-71.
23.
Jablin, F.M. & Seibold, D.R. (1978). Implications for problem solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: Acritical review of the literature. The Southern States Speech Communication Journal, 43: 327-356.
24.
Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
Janis, IL. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.
26.
Jessup, L.M., Connolly, T. & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on group process in an idea generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14: 313-321.
27.
Jessup, L.M. & Tansik, D.A. (1991). Decision making in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support system. Decision sciences, 22: 266-279.
28.
Lamm, H. & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (Brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology:361-387.
29.
Lane, S. & Sabers, D. (1989). The use of generalizability theory for estimating the dependability of a scoring system for sample essays. Applied Measurement in Education.
30.
Lewis, A.C., Sadosky, T.L & Connolly, T. (1975). The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 22: 119-124.
31.
Maier, N.R.F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
32.
McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
33.
McGuire, T.W., Kiesler, S. & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 917-930.
34.
Mills, T.M. (1953). Power relationships in three person groups, American Sociological Review, 18: 351-357.
35.
Monge, P.R. & Eisenberg, E.M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. Pp. 304-342 in F. Jablin, L. Putnam, L. Porter & K. Roberts (eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of minority and majority influence. Psychological Review, 93: 1-10.
37.
Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. & George, J.F. (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7): 40-61.
Pool, M.S. & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. Pp. 171-191 in J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (eds.), Organizations and communications technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
Renzulli, J.S., Owen, S.V. & Callahan, CM. (1974). Fluency, flexibility and originality as a function of group size. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8: 107-113.
41.
Rice, R. (ed.) (1984). The new media: Communication, research, technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Schmitz, J.A. & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, information richness, and electronic mail: A test of the social influence model of technology use. Communication Research, 18: 487-523.
43.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior, 3rd ed.New York: McGraw Hill.
44.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. & McGuire, T.W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37: 157-187.
45.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32: 1492-1512.
46.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
47.
Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C. & Block, C.H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
48.
Thelen, H.A. (1949). Group dynamics in instruction: Principle of least group size. School Review, 57: 139-148.
49.
Tyran, C.K., Dennis, A.R., Vogel, D.R. & Nunamaker, Jr., J.F. (1992). The application of electronic meeting systems to support strategic management. MIS Quarterly, 26(3): 313-334.
50.
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. & Connolly, T. (1994). Group versus individual brainstorming: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57: 448-467.
51.
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. & Nunamaker, Jr., J.F. (1992). Anonymity and group size effects on computer mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1): 49-73.
52.
Van de Ven, A. & Delbecq, A.L. (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14: 203-212.
53.
Van de Ven, A. & Delbecq, A.L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, delphi, and interacting group decision-making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17: 314-318.
54.
Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and medidated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84: 963-976.
55.
Yetton, P. & Bottger, P. (1983). The relationship among group size, member ability, social decision schemes, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32: 145-159.
