The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity
Abstract
: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.
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
Cites
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393 · cited 1×
“Wood [30] defmes task complexity in terms of three components; (1) products (deliverablcs), (2) acts (behavior required to create products), and (3) information cues (knowledge that allows actors to make judgments), and three types of complexity: (I) component complexity (number of acts and infonnation cues needed to…”
Background
Cited by
Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002 · Cited by 1,314
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000113 · Cited by 375
Providing Timely Examples Improves the Quantity and Quality of Generated Ideas
Siangliulue, P., Chan, J., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition · doi:10.1145/2757226.2757230 · Cited by 99
Blaskovich, J. L. (2008) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/jis.2008.22.1.27 · Cited by 81
Peñarroja, V., Orengo, V., & Zornoza, A. (2017) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12449 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 155-170
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1487394456
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518095
- The paper
- Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1995). Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518095
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.
