This article presents six new principles emerging from four decades of academic and industry research on the generation of high-quality creative ideas by “brainstorming”. The principles are: (a) brainstorming insructions are essential and should emphasize, paradoxically, number and not quality of ideas; (b) a specific, difficult target should be set for the number of ideas; (c) individuals, not groups, should generate the initial ideas; (d) groups should then be used to amalgamate and refine the ideas; (e) individuals should provide the final ratings to select the best ideas, which will increase commitment to the ideas selected; and, (f) the time required for successful brainstorming should be kept remarkably short. By following these principles, brainstorming will more dependably produce high-quality creative results.
Armstrong, J.S., 1987, Long-range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer (New York, Wiley) Second Edition.
2.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., 1965, Management and Advertising Problems in the Advertiser-Agency Relationship (New York, NY, Association of National Advertisers, Inc.).
3.
Bottger, P.C. and P.W. Yetton, 1987, Improving group perfor Mance by training in individual problem solving, Jounal of Applied Psychology, 72, 4, November, 651–657.
4.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and J.W. Getzels, 1988, Creativity and problem finding, in: F.H. Harley and R.W. Neperud, eds., The Foundations of Æsthetics, Art, and Art Education (New York, Praeger), pp. 91–106.
5.
Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van de Ven, and D.H. Gustafson, Group Techniques for Program Planning (Middleton, WI, Green Briar Press).
6.
Diehl, A. and W. Stroebe, 1987, Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 3, September, 497–509.
7.
Dennis, A.R., J.S. Valacich, and J.F. Nunamaker, Jr., 1990, An experimental investigation of the effects of group size in an electronic meeting environment, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 25, 5, September/October, 1049–1057.
8.
Earley, P.D. and T.R. Lituchy, 1991, Delineating goal and efficacy effects: a test of three models, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1, February, 81–98.
9.
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, February, 1–13.
10.
Gallupe, R.B., L.M. Bastianutti, and W.H. Cooper, Unblocking brainstorms, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1, February, 137–142.
11.
Gustafson, D.H., R.K. Shukla, A. Delbecq, and G.W. Walster, 1973, A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups, Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor Mance, 9, 2, April, 280–291.
12.
Hirst, M. and P.W. Yetton, 1990, The effects of goal setting and task interdependence on perfor Mance, AGSM Working paper 90-040, University of New South Wales, Kensington.
13.
Kabanoff, B. and J.R. Rossiter, 1994, Recent developments in applied creativity, in: C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson, eds., International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chichester, U.K., John Wiley and Sons) Volume 9.
14.
Kaiser, S.N. and R.W. Woodman, 1985, Multidisciplinary teams and group-decision-making techniques: possible solutions to decision-making problems, School Psychology Review, 14, 4, Autumn, 457–470.
15.
Latané, B., K. Williams, and S. Harkins, 1979, Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 6, June, 822–832.
16.
Latham, G.P. and T.W. Lee, Goal setting, in: E.A. Locke, ed., Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings (Lexington, MA, Lexington Books) pp. 101–117.
17.
Leana, C., 1985, A partial test of Janis' Groupthink model: effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision-making, Journal of Management, 11, 1, Spring, 5–17.
18.
Mento, A.J., E.A. Locke, and H.J. Klein, 1992, Relationship of goal level to valence and instrumentality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 4, August, 395–405.
19.
Olton, R.M., 1979, Experimental studies of incubation: searching for the elusive, Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 1, 9–22.
20.
Osborn, A.F., 1953 (rev. 1957, 1963), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons).
21.
Parnes, S.J. and A. Meadow, 1959, Effects of ‘brainstorming’ instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects, Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 4, August, 171–176.
22.
Parnes, S.J., 1961, Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving, Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 3, June, 117–122.
23.
Read, J.D. and D. Bruce, 1982, Longitudinal tracking of difficult memory retrieval, Cognitive Psychology, 14, 2, April, 280–300.
24.
Russo, J.E. and P.J.H. Schoemaker, 1989, Decision Traps (New York, Doubleday).
25.
Van de Ven, A. and A.L. Delbecq, 1971, Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, 14, 2, June, 203–212.
26.
Wood, R.E., A.J. Mento, and E.A. Locke, 1987, Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 3, August, 416–425.
27.
Yetton, P.W. and P.C. Bottger, 1982, Individual versus group problem solving: an empirical test of a best member strategy, Organisational Behaviour and Human Perfor Mance, June 29, 307–321.
