Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Dass Brainstorming in Gruppen die Kreativität erhöht gilt als Binsenwahrheit. Dennoch hat eine Vielzahl von Untersuchungen gezeigt, dass in Brainstorminggruppen viel weniger und auch weniger gute Ideen erzeugt werden als individuell. Dieser Artikel berichtet die Ergebnisse von zwei Forschungsprogrammen, in denen mögliche Ursachen dieser Leistungseinbußen und die ihnen zugrunde liegenden kognitiven Prozesse identifiziert wurden. In den frühen Untersuchungen identifizierten Diehl und Stroebe (1987, 1991) Produktionsblockierung als Hauptursache. Um zu erklären, warum die Gruppenmitglieder die aufgrund des “Turn-taking“ entstehenden Wartezeiten nicht produktiv nützen können, entwickelten Nijstad, Stroebe und Lodewijkx (2002, in Druck) eine kognitive Theorie der Ideengenerierung (SIAM: Seach for Ideas in Associative Memory). Nach dieser Theorie beruht die Produktion von Ideen auf einem zwei-Phasenprozess, in dem eine Phase der Wissensaktivierung von einer Phase der Ideengenerierung gefolgt wird. In beiden Phasen wird der kognitive Prozess durch die Wartezeiten behindert, wobei sich die mangelnde Vorhersagbarkeit der Wartezeiten vor allem auf die erste Phase, die Dauer der Wartezeiten hingegen auf die zweite Phase auswirkt. Zwei Untersuchungen bestätigen diese Vorhersagen. Im letzten Teil des Artikels werden Vorhersagen der SIAM-Theorie über Bedingungen geprüft, unter denen die Darbietung von Ideen, bei gleichzeitiger Ausschaltung der Blockierung (z.B. elektronisches Brainstorming), die Ideengenerierung stimulieren können.
Abstract. That group brainstorming increases creativity can be considered a truism. And yet, there is overwhelming evidence that group brainstorming produces fewer ideas, and fewer good ideas than individual brainstorming. This article reports on two research programs which succeeded in identifying the causes of this productivity loss and explaining the psychological processes which mediate it. In the early studies, Diehl and Stroebe (1987, 1991) identified mutual production blocking as the main cause. Later Nijstad, Stroebe and Lodewijkx (2002, in press) developed a cognitive theory of idea generation (SIAM; Search for Ideas in Associative Memory), to explain why group members are unable to use productively the waiting periods due to “turn-taking”. According to this theory, idea generation consists of two phases, with problem-relevant knowledge being activated in a first phase, followed by idea-generation in a second phase. According to SIAM, production blocking should affect both phases, with lack of predictability of the waiting periods inhibiting the more effortful knowledge activation process, and length of waiting periods interfering with idea generation. Two experiments are reported to support these predictions. The last section derives and tests predictions from SIAM about conditions under which exposure to ideas (in the absence of blocking) could stimulate idea generation.
Literatur
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice . Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumBaddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A , 5– 28Baddeley, A. D. , Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic PressBouchard, T. J. (1972). A comparison of two group brain-storming procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 , 418– 421Bouchard, T. J. , Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 , 51– 55Bousfield, W. A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 36 , 67– 81Camacho, L. M. , Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 , 1071– 1080Cantor, J. , Engle, R. W. (1993). Working memory capacity as long-term memory activation: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 5 , 1101– 1114Collaros, P. A. , Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53 , 159– 163Collins, A. M. , Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82 , 407– 428Daneman, M. , Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 , 450– 466Dennis, A. R. , Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 531– 537Diehl, M. (1991). Kollektive Kreativität: Zur Quantität und Qualität der Ideenproduktion in Kleingruppen . Habilitationschrift, Universität TübingenDiehl, M. , Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brain-storming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 497– 509Diehl, M. , Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 392– 403Diehl, M. , Munkes, J. , Ziegler, R. (2002). Brainstorming and cognitive stimulation: When does being exposed to the ideas of others facilitate or inhibit one’s own idea generation? . Conference of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, San SebastianDugosch, K. L. , Paulus, P. B. , Roland, E. J. , Yang, H-C. (2000). Cognitive Stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 722– 735Gallupe, R. B. , Cooper, W. H. , Grisé, M. L. , Bastionutti, L. M. (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 , 77– 86Lamm, H. , Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on a task requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 , 362– 388Loftus, E. F. (1974). Activation of semantic memory. American Journal of Psychology, 86 , 331– 337Maginn, B. K. , Harris, R. J. (1980). Effects of anticipated evaluation on individual brainstorming performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 , 219– 225Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 , 220– 232Mensink, G. M. , Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1989). A model of contextual fluctuation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33 , 172– 186Mullen, B. , Johnson, C. , Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12 , 3– 24Nijstad, B. A. (2000). How the group affects the mind: Effects of communication in idea generating groups . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht UniversityNijstad, B. A. , Stroebe, W. , Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (1999). Persistence of brainstorming groups: How do people know when to stop?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 , 165– 185Nijstad, B. A. , Stroebe, W. , Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 , 535– 544Nijstad, B. A. , Stroebe, W. , Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (in press) Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressOsborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination (2. Aufl.1957). New York: ScribnerPaulus, P. B. , Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 , 76– 87Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1993). The story of the two-store model of memory: Past criticisms, current status, and future directions. In D. E. Myers & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 467-488). Cambridge: The MIT PressRaaijmakers, J. G. W. , Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88 , 93– 134Roediger, H. L. (1993). Learning and memory: Progress and challenge. In D. E. Myers & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 509-528). Cambridge: The MIT PressStroebe, W. (1981). Social loafing and the economic theory of public goods. First International Conference on Social Processes in Small Groups . Nags Head Conference Center, USAStroebe, W. , Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 5, pp. 271-303). London: WileyStroebe, W. , Diehl, M. , Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 , 643– 650Stroebe, W. , Frey, B. (1982). Self-interest and collective action: the economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21 , 121– 137Taylor, D. W. , Berry, P. C. , Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3 , 23– 47Valacich, J. S. , Dennis, A. R. , Connolly, T. (1994). Idea-generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57 , 448– 467Ziegler, R. , Diehl, M. , Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does computer-mediated communication improve group brainstorming?. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3 , 141– 158
