Abstract

The goal of this research was to test whether the kind of question that is used to prompt brainstorming differentially affects individual and group idea generation performance. More specifically, it was examined if prompts that require brainstormers to generate alternate uses for common objects (e.g., other uses for cars) foster more benefits from collaborative ideation than prompts to generate improvements for an object, place, or process (e.g., ways to improve cars). These hypotheses were tested in two experiments using electronic idea exchanges. In Experiment 1, individuals generated ideas about either alternate uses or potential improvements for cars, SUVs, or vans. In Experiment 2, participants brainstormed in response to one of these two prompts in either an interactive group setting (exchanging ideas with two others) or individually (no idea sharing). The results of both experiments showed that alternate uses and improvements prompts indeed differentially affected ideational performance in terms of both idea quantity and quality. The results were also consistent with the well documented “process loss” on the improvements prompt, but the gap between interacting and nominal groups was closed on the alternate uses prompt. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Highlights

  • Innovation is the key to success for many of today’s businesses and organizations

  • This research tested whether or not prompts that require groups to generate alternate uses for common objects foster more benefits from collaborative ideation than prompts to improve an object, place, or process

  • In Experiment 3, participants brainstormed in response to one of the two prompts in either an interactive group setting or individually

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Innovation is the key to success for many of today’s businesses and organizations. all innovations begin with an idea. Three types of questions (prompts) have generally been used in research on individual and group brainstorming: (1) improvements to an object, place, or process, such as ways to improve a university (e.g., Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001; Baruah & Paulus, 2008; DeDreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008), (2) consequences of hypothetical scenarios, such as advantages and disadvantages associated with having an extra thumb (e.g., Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, & Yang, 2000), and (3) alternate uses for a common household object, such as novel uses for a paperclip (e.g., Friedman, Fishbach, Forster, & Werth, 2003; Paulus & Yang, 2000) These three question types have been generally assumed to be equivalent as stimuli, they differ in several characteristics that may differentially affect individual brainstorming performance. An individual working alone may quickly become “stuck” and unable to come up with a new idea

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call