This study tested creativity of small electronic brainstorming (EBS) groups as a function of the homogeneity and heterogeneity of assigned sub-topics (categories) of a broader problem over time. A total of 168 participants were exposed to categories of high or low degree of relatedness, and their performance was tracked over time in group and e-nominal paradigm. Findings revealed that the EBS groups became more creative and exhibited slower productivity loss compared with the e-nominal groups over time. The assignment of homogeneous categories enhanced the average originality of ideas, over time especially for the EBS groups. The findings have implications for theoretical as well as practical perspectives for creative processes in small virtual brainstorming groups.
BaruahJ.PaulusP. B. (2009). Enhancing creativity in groups: The search for synergy. In NealeM.MannixB.GoncaloJ. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 29-56). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Press. doi:10.1108/S1534-0856(2009)0000012005
2.
BaruahJ.PaulusP. B. (2011). Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1070-1077. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.007
3.
BeatyR. E.SilviaP. J. (2012). Why do ideas get more creative over time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent think tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity, 6, 309-319. doi:10.1037/a0029171
4.
BrownV. R.PaulusP. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208-212. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00202
5.
CoskunH.PaulusP. B.BrownV.SherwoodJ. J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 307-329. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.4.307
6.
DeujaA.KohnN. W.PaulusP. B.KordeR. (2014). Taking a broad perspective before brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18, 222-236. doi:10.1037/gdn0000008
7.
DugoshK. L.PaulusP. B.RolandE. J.YangH. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 722-735. doi:10.1037//0022-35I4.79.5.722
8.
DzindoletT. M.PaulusP. B.GlazerC. (2012). Brainstorming in virtual teams. In SilvaC. N. (Ed.), Online research methods in urban and planning studies: Design and outcome (pp. 138-156). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0074-4
9.
KohnN. W.SmithS. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 359-371. doi:10.1002/acp.1699
10.
LareyT. S.PaulusP. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 175-184. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1203_2
11.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186-213. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1
12.
PaulusP. B. (2015). Electronic brainstorming research and its implications for e-planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 4, 42-53. doi:10.4018/ijepr.2015010103
13.
PaulusP. B.BrownV. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social & Personality Compass, 1, 248-265. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
14.
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain specific knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933-946. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014
15.
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2014). Effects of problem scope and creativity instructions on idea generation and selection. Creative Research Journal, 6, 185-191. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901084
