The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups
Abstract
There is pervasive evidence that people produce more ideas and more good ideas when working alone rather than in groups. This chapter will first review the evidence for the productivity loss in brainstorming groups and then evaluate the various theoretical explanations which have been offered to account for these findings in the light of empirical research. This evidence suggests that the productivity loss in idea-generating groups is caused mainly by mutual production blocking due to the constraint on groups that members can talk only in turn. We then discuss various strategies that have been developed to overcome the disruptive effects of production blocking. However, since so far even the most successful strategies have raised the productivity of group members only to the level they would have achieved if they had worked individually, our final section discusses an ‘illusion of group effectivity’ as a reason for the persistence of the belief that group discussions are an effective means of generating ideas.
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
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure
Samuelson, P. A. (1954) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1925895 · Cited by 7,458
Cited by
West, M. A. (2002) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00951 · Cited by 1,536
Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393872 · Cited by 1,013
How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1 · Cited by 607
Self-citationPaulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x · Cited by 364
Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00500-0 · Cited by 342
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M.
- Venue
- European Review of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 271-303
- ISSN
- 1046-3283 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-277X
- OpenAlex
- W2087820931
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.86
- 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: Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14792779543000084
- The paper
- Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups. European Review of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000084
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.