The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration
Abstract
This article reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of previous research on productivity loss in brainstorming groups. The following patterns were observed: Generally, brainstorming groups are significantly less productive than nominal groups, in terms of both quantity and quality. Stronger productivity Toss was demonstrated in the context of (a) larger groups, (b) experimenter presence, (c) tape-recorded vocalization of contributions (vs. writing of contributions), and (d) in comparison to a nominal group of truly Alone individuals (vs. a nominal group of Together individuals). These patterns are (a) highly consistent with predictions derived from social psychological explanatory mechanisms, and (b) only marginally consistent with procedural explanatory mechanisms, and (c) highly inconsistent with economic explanatory mechanisms. This article considers the implications of these patterns for the use of, and for future research on, brainstorming.
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
One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.85 · Cited by 1,248
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.571 · Cited by 589
The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory.
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.819 · Cited by 678
A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation
Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016) · Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002 · Cited by 518
Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective.
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975 · Cited by 417
The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task
Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., & Dawe, L. A. (2002) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/0018720024494856 · Cited by 386
Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618808244 · Cited by 390
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x · Cited by 364
How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges
Han, S. J., Chae, C., Macko, P., Park, W., & Beyerlein, M. (2017) · European Journal of Training and Development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-10-2016-0073 · Cited by 55
Individual preparation for collaborative learning: Systematic review and synthesis
Mende, S., Proske, A., & Narciss, S. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086 · Cited by 47
How Technology Is Changing Creativity
Hartley, I., & Viskontas, I. (2023) · Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28206-5_15 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E.
- Venue
- Basic and Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-03
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-23
- ISSN
- 0197-3533 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-4834
- OpenAlex
- W2050378517
- Cited by
- 805
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.61
- 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
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.
