Electronic Brainstorming Groups Research Articles

The Role of Time and Category Relatedness in Electronic Brainstorming

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.

The Impact of Collective Intelligence on the Fraud Brainstorming Effectiveness of Traditional and Virtual Audit Teams

Emerging research in psychology shows that collective intelligence, which captures the general ability of a group to perform a wide variety of tasks, is a strong predictor of group performance. I introduce the concept of collective intelligence to the auditing literature, and conduct an experiment to study its effect on fraud brainstorming effectiveness. I employ a between-subjects design in which 41 audit brainstorming groups, comprising 152 upper-level accounting students, are assigned to either an electronic or a face-to-face group condition. I hypothesize and find that collective intelligence predicts fraud brainstorming effectiveness overall, and that electronic groups are more effective than face-to-face groups. Neither average member intelligence nor maximum member intelligence is predictive of brainstorming effectiveness. I also find that high collective intelligence improves the brainstorming performance of electronic groups more than that of face-to-face groups, in line with expectations. Supplementary analysis of vocal, non-verbal interactions within groups indicates that speaking turn variance, as measured by wearable electronic sensors, is negatively correlated with both collective intelligence and fraud brainstorming effectiveness. These results imply that process losses associated with face-to-face brainstorming attenuate the countervailing beneficial impact of high collective intelligence, such that net process gains are less than those realized by electronic brainstorming groups. The results also suggest that higher performing brainstorming groups consist of members that participate more equally in group conversations and that are better at reading social signals, as compared to members of less effective groups.

Patterns in Electronic Brainstorming

Research has shown that some groups using electronic brainstorming generate more unique ideas than groups using nominal group brainstorming, while others do not. This study examined two factors through which group size may affect brainstorming performance: synergy and social loafing. Groups brainstormed using three techniques to manipulate synergy and two group sizes to manipulate social loafing. We found no social loafing effects. We found a time effect: nominal brainstorming groups that received no synergy from the ideas of others produced more ideas than electronic groups in the first time period and fewer ideas in the last time period. We conclude that synergy from the ideas of others is only important when groups brainstorm for longer time period. We also conclude that electronic brainstorming groups should be given at least 30 minutes to work on tasks, or else they will be unlikely to develop synergy.

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

This meta-analysis examines the influence of electronic communication media on group idea generation tasks. Data from the following three areas of the brainstorming literature are synthesized to assess differences across performance variables and group member satisfaction: (1) electronic brainstorming (EBS) groups versus traditional face-to-face (FTF) interacting groups, (2) EBS groups versus nominal groups, and (3) EBS versus electronic nominal (e-nominal) groups. The results of this integration show that EBS groups are more productive and more satisfied with the interaction process than FTF groups. Additionally, large EBS groups outperformed nominal groups, whereas small nominal groups outperformed EBS groups. These findings have important implications for electronic collaboration and teamwork in both academic and organizational settings, especially given the recent proliferation of virtual teamwork.

A Meta-Analysis of Group Side Effects in Electronic Brainstorming

Electronic brainstorming (EBS) has been a focus of academic research since the 1980s. The results suggest that in most – but not all – cases, groups using EBS produce more ideas than groups using verbal brainstorming. In contrast, the results comparing groups using EBS to groups using nominal group brainstorming have been mixed: sometimes EBS groups produce more ideas, while in other cases, nominal groups produce more. This article examines the effects of group size on EBS, verbal brainstorming and nominal group brainstorming. We found that group size is a significant factor in predicting the performance of EBS relative to verbal brainstorming and nominal group brainstorming. As group size increases, the relative benefit of EBS increases. EBS groups outperform verbal groups when group size reaches four people. EBS groups outperform nominal groups when group size reaches 10 people.

Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality

Idea quality is the most important indicator of group brainstorming performance. Yet, little electronic brainstorming (EBS) research has assessed idea quality directly. This article provides a closer look at EBS and nominal brainstorming groups in terms of idea quality. This study employed an unbalanced repeated measures experimental design to compare the quality of ideas generated by small groups using four brainstorming technologies (nominal, verbal, EBS-anonymous, and EBS-non-anonymous). In the experiment, three conditions thought to improve the effectiveness of EBS groups were also manipulated. The results indicated that overall, nominal brainstorming groups generated ideas at least as good, if not better, than EBS groups. Furthermore, the three conditions manipulated did not improve the quality of the ideas generated by EBS groups.

Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity

Electronic brainstorming (EBS) has been proposed as a superior approach to both nominal brainstorming (working alone) and face-to-face brainstorming (verbal). However, existing empirical evidence regarding EBS's superiority over nominal brainstorming is weak. Through a comprehensive examination of the process gains and process losses inherent to different brainstorming approaches, this paper explains past results. The paper also suggests that the process gain versus process loss advantages of EBS technologies may not be large enough to enable EBS groups to outperform nominal groups. In an effort to find alternate ways of using EBS more productively, three conditions thought to increase EBS's process gains and decrease its process losses (thus improving its productivity) are identified. A laboratory experiment designed to compare the productivity of ad hoc and established groups using four brainstorming technologies (nominal, EBS-anonymous, EBS-nonanonymous, verbal), generating ideas on socially sensitive and less sensitive topics, in the presence and absence of contextual cues, is then described. The results of the experiment showed that overall, groups using nominal brainstorming significantly outperformed groups using the other three brainstorming approaches. Further, even under conditions thought to be favorable to EBS, nominal brainstorming groups were at least as productive as EBS groups. The paper explains these results by suggesting that the process gains of EBS may not be as large as expected and that the presence of four additional process losses inherent to EBS technologies impair its productivity. It is also argued that the prevailing popularity of group brainstorming (verbal or electronic) in organizations may be explained by the perceived productivity of those approaches. These perceptions, which are at odds with reality, create the illusion of productivity. A similar misperception may also cause an illusion of EBS productivity in the research community, especially when perceptual measures of group performance are used.

Some Liberating Effects of Anonymous Electronic Brainstorming

The high productivity of electronic brainstorming groups has been attributed to several factors, one of which is anonymity. The authors assessed the role of anonymity by randomly assigning brainstorming groups to one offour conditions: anonymous electronic, nonanonymous electronic, verbal, and nominal. The authors found some evidence that more controversial ideas were produced by members of anonymous electronic groups than by members of the other groups. The authors also found clear evidence that anonymous brainstorming groups produced more nonredundant ideas than did nonanonymous brainstorming groups.

Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity

This paper presents a study of electronic brainstorming (EBS) that begins with theory building, tool development, and experimentation, and ends with practical guidance for facilitators and developers. The paper argues that social loafing impairs the productivity of EBS groups, and that social comparison is a way to decrease the effect(s) of social loafing. The literature on brainstorming productivity suggests that there is a correlation between the quantity of ideas produced and the number of high-quality ideas produced. By inducing social comparison with a graphical feedback tool and increasing the salience of that social comparison with facilitation techniques, we increased the productivity of EBS groups by 63 percent.

Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups

An experiment was conducted with small groups averaging about eight people and large groups averaging about 48 people in size. We compared the group members' perceived production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and satisfaction with a meeting of each group size using electronic and verbal brainstorming. While there was no significant difference in perceived satisfaction, evaluation apprehension, or production blocking in either group size using electronic brainstorming, there was a significant difference between small verbal groups and large verbal groups. There was also a significant difference in the dependent measures between large verbal groups and large electronic brainstorming groups. Results suggest that the benefits of electronic brainstorming are more pronounced with larger groups than with smaller groups.

Blocking electronic brainstorms.

R. B. Gallupe, L. Bastianutti, and W. H. Cooper (1991) attributed the superiority of electronic brainstorming to a number of factors, including the technology's ability to reduce production blocking. In the present article, the authors manipulated production blocking in 3 experiments and assessed the performance of blocked and unblocked electronic brainstorming groups and verbal brainstorming groups. When normal electronic brainstorming groups were compared with verbal brainstorming groups, electronic brainstorming groups were found to be significantly more productive, which replicated earlier research results. In contrast, blocked electronic brainstorming groups performed at the same (or lower) levels as verbal brainstorming groups in all 3 experiments

ELECTRONIC VS. NON-ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING.

Electronic and non-electronic brainstorming groups were compared in two studies. We found that electronic brainstorming groups generated more non-redundant ideas than non-electronic brainstorming g...