The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review
Open accessAbstract
In the experiments reviewed in this article the subjects are asked to produce ideas that are relevant to a given task request (e.g., possible consequences of a hypothetical event). After describing the specific task material and the performance measures used in the relevant research studies, some analytic background is given by outlining the cognitive resources required in this kind of experimental task and by listing the various factors that may come into play when subjects perform in groups (with discussion) instead of individually. We then review the studies comparing individual and group performance. In all of these experiments the subjects were asked to work according to the rules of brainstorming, which prescribe that participants refrain from evaluating their ideas. This procedure purportedly results in superior group, relative to individual, performance. However, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that subjects brainstorming in small groups produce fewer ideas than the same number of subjects brainstorming individually. Less clear evidence is available on measures of quality, uniqueness and variety. The discussion considers factors that may be responsible for this inferiority of groups. The role of social inhibition receives particular attention also in terms of suggestions for research. Apart from the group‐individual comparison we review the existing research concerning factors that may influence group performance on idea‐generation tasks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The group polarization phenomenon.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 · Cited by 1,102
Self-citationEthnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups
McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496496272003 · Cited by 852
The Network Structure of Exploration and Exploitation
Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. (2007) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.52.4.667 · Cited by 696
Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160 · Cited by 498
Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity
Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1995) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350090303 · Cited by 187
Effects of Small-Group Learning on Transfer: a Meta-Analysis
Pai, H.-H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8 · Cited by 140
Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care?
Kaba, A., Wishart, I., Fraser, K., Coderre, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12943 · Cited by 83
McNamara, K., Dennis, A. R., & Carte, T. A. (2008) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530701777123 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1973-10
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 361-388
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2099870751
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.