Hybrid brainstorming is ecologically more valid than all-interactive or all-noninteractive brainstorming, yet understudied. Although ideational benefits of hybrid groups have been found, studies have rarely focused on its affective/motivational contributions or ability to select ideas. In a randomized experiment, noninteractive-then-interactive (hybrid) groups perceived (1) higher goal clarity, engagement, and task attractiveness, and (2) chose more quality ideas than all-noninteractive groups. Additionally, (3) given the instruction for both hybrid and all-noninteractive conditions to be critical in idea selection, participants individually selected ideas that were more useful, thus overall higher quality, than the nonselected.
AhnP. H.van SwolL. M. (2021). Personality metatraits, neurocognitive networks, and reasoning norms for creative decision-making. In DuttaT.MandalM. K. (Eds.), Consumer happiness: Multiple perspectives (pp. 179–201). Springer.
2.
AmabileT. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). JAI Press.
3.
AmabileT.FisherC. M.PillemerJ. (2014). IDEO’s culture of helping. Harvard Business Review, 92(1), 54–61.
4.
AmabileT. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
5.
AmabileT. M.PillemerJ. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001
6.
AmabileT. M.PrattM. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
7.
AprilK. A. (1999). Leading through communication, conversation and dialogue. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(5), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910287108
8.
BaronR. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision-making. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). Academic Press.
CarronA. V.WidmeyerW. N.BrawleyL. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.3.244
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118x(88)90001-3
15.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM.SawyerK. (2014). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. In CsikszentmihalyiM. (Ed.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 67–71). Springer.
17.
De VreedeG. J.BriggsR. O.Reiter-PalmonR. (2010). Exploring asynchronous brainstorming in large groups: A field comparison of serial and parallel subgroups. Human Factors, 52(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809354748
18.
DennisA. R.ReinickeB. A.(2004). Beta versus VHS and the acceptance of electronic brainstorming technology. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148622
19.
DeRosaD. M.SmithC. L.HantulaD. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003
20.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
21.
DunbarK. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In WardT. B.SmithS. M.VaidJ. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). American Psychological Association.
22.
ElqayamS.EvansJ. S. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft Bayesian approaches. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.834268
23.
EstabrooksP. A.CarronA. V. (2000). The Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 4(3), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.3.230
24.
FaureC. (2004). Beyond brainstorming: Effects of different group procedures on selection of ideas and satisfaction with the process. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01229.x
GallupeR. B.DennisA. R.CooperW. H.ValacichJ. S.BastianuttiL. M.NunamakerJ. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.5465/256377
28.
García-MoralesV. J.Llorens-MontesF. J.Verdú-JoverA. J. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610642940
29.
GirotraK.TerwieschC.UlrichK. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56(4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144
30.
HarveyS.KouC. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213498591
31.
Haught-TrompC. (2017). The green eggs and ham hypothesis: How constraints facilitate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000061
32.
HenningsenD. D.HenningsenM. L. M. (2013). Generating ideas about the uses of brainstorming: Reconsidering the losses and gains of brainstorming groups relative to nominal groups. Southern Communication Journal, 78(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2012.717684
33.
HovlandC. I.HarveyO. J.SherifM. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(2), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048480
34.
IyengarS. S.LepperM. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
35.
KelleyT. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. Doubleday.
36.
KerrD. S.MurthyU. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:grup.0000042960.38411.52
37.
KohnN. W.SmithS. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1699
38.
KordeR.PaulusP. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
39.
KramerM. W.KuoC. L.DaileyJ. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generating ideas. Small Group Research, 28(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497282003
40.
KramerT. J.FlemingG. P.MannisS. M. (2001). Improving face-to-face brainstorming through modeling and facilitation. Small Group Research, 32(5), 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200502
41.
LareyT. S.PaulusP. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_2
42.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
43.
Leggett DugoshK.PaulusP. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.009
LitchfieldR. C.FanJ.BrownV. R. (2011). Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals. Motivation and Emotion, 35(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9203-3
46.
MaaraviY.HellerB.ShohamY.MoharS.DeutschB. (2021). Ideation in the digital age: Literature review and integrative model for electronic brainstorming. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 1431–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00400-5
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
49.
MeadowA.ParnesS. J. (1959). Evaluation of training in creative problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046040
50.
MeadowA.ParnesS. J.ReeseH. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 413–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043917
51.
MuellerJ. S.MelwaniS.GoncaloJ. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611421018
52.
NemethC. J.ConnellJ. B.RogersJ. D.BrownK. S. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x
53.
NielsenK.MiragliaM. (2017). What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the ‘what works?’ question in organizational intervention research. Human Relations, 70(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716670226
54.
OckerR.FjermestadJ.HiltzS. R.JohnsonK. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518198
55.
OffnerA. K.KramerT. J.WinterJ. P. (1996). The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272005
56.
OsbornA. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking (1st ed.). Scribner.
57.
OxleyN. L.DzindoletM. T.PaulusP. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633–646.
58.
ParnesS. J.MeadowA. (1959). Effects of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Education & Psychology, 50(4), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047223
59.
PaulusP.LareyT.OrtegaA. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1701&2_15
60.
PaulusP. B.CourseyL. E.KenworthyJ. B. (2019). Divergent and convergent collaborative creativity. In LebudaI.GlăveanuV. P. (Eds.), Handbook of social creativity research (pp. 245–262). Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
PaulusP. B.DzindoletM. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.575
62.
PaulusP. B.DzindoletM. T.PoletesG.CamachoL. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293191009
63.
PinsonneaultA.BarkiH.GallupeR. B.HoppenN. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.110
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005
66.
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101(Pt 1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X414204
67.
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2014). Effects of problem scope and creativity instructions on idea generation and selection. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901084
68.
Rodríguez-SánchezA. M.DevlooT.RicoR.SalanovaM.AnseelF. (2017). What makes creative teams tick? Cohesion, engagement, and performance across creativity tasks: A three-wave study. Group & Organization Management, 42(4), 521–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116636476
69.
RotterG. S.PortugalS. M. (1969). Group and individual effects in problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 338–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027771
70.
SalanovaM.LlorensS.CifreE.MartínezI. M.SchaufeliW. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577
71.
SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.González-romáV.BakkerA. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326
72.
SchwartzB. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why less is more. HarperCollins.
73.
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
StroebeW.DiehlM. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 271–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000084
76.
StroebeW.DiehlM.AbakoumkinG. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185015
77.
StroebeW.NijstadB. A.RietzschelE. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43(10), 157–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43004-X
78.
SuttonR. I.HargadonA. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393872
79.
WeickK. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
