The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming.

Abstract

The authors predicted that individuals high in dispositional anxiousness would perform poorly when brainstorming in groups but not during solitary brainstorming. Experiment 1 demonstrated this result in a comparison of groups of 4 that were all high or all low in interaction anxiousness. In groups with 2 low-anxious and 2 high-anxious individuals, the low-anxious individuals lowered their performance in the direction of the high-anxious individuals. These results suggest that part of the productivity loss observed in interactive brainstorming groups may be due to the inhibited performance of individuals who are uncomfortable with group interaction. Moreover, these individuals may influence others in the group to lower their performance in line with that inhibited performance level. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the poor performance of socially anxious groups in interactive brainstorming is not dependent on whether group members have individual microphones or share 1 common microphone.The group brainstorming approach to idea generation is used widely under the assumption that it is more efficient than individual idea generation. The traditional procedure consists of a set of rules that presumably encourage high productivity (Osborn, 1957). These rules are: express all ideas that come to mind, the wilder the better; quantity is wanted, so the more the better; criticism is ruled out; and improve and combine ideas already presented. However, researchers repeatedly have found that nominal groups (combined performance of individuals brainstorming alone) are more productive than interactive brainstorming groups (i.e.

The Personality Composition of Teams and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Creative Confidence

“…New ideas, especially those that depart from the status quo, are often met by others with skepticism or ridicule presenting potential threats to one's self-esteem and causing individuals to withhold such ideas. However, this tendency is more likely to occur among individuals who feel uncomfortable interacting in social settings, who lack self-assurance, and who tend to experience high levels of communication apprehension (Bradshaw, Stasson, & Alexander, 1999;Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Jablin, Seibold, & Sorenson, 1977) -characteristics describing low levels of extraversion. Individuals who are confident, sociable, and talkative (i.e., extraverted) may, therefore, be more likely to share their ideas with others in the team, thereby creating the conditions necessary for idea cross-fertilization to occur.…”

“…Without being exposed to the contributions presented by others, it is unlikely that members will produce ideas different from those they may have generated individually. Unfortunately, individuals in teams frequently withhold their ideas out of fear of being negatively evaluated (Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Collaros & Anderson, 1969). New ideas, especially those that depart from the status quo, are often met by others with skepticism or ridicule presenting potential threats to one's self-esteem and causing individuals to withhold such ideas.…”

A new dynamical model of brainstorming: Linear, nonlinear, continuous (simultaneous) and impulsive (sequential) cases

“…These are evaluation apprehension or social anxiety (feeling of some fear in expressing the potential ideas in front of a group (Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Collaros & Anderson, 1969;Harari & Graham, 1975;Mullen et al, 1991)), free-riding or social loafing (the tendency to rely on the efforts of others to accomplish the task (Borgatta & Sales, 1953;Diehl & Stroebe, 1987;Karau & Williams, 1993;Kerr & Bruun, 1983;Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)), production blocking (the inability to express the ideas because someone else is talking: (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;Nijstad, Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 2003)), and downward matching (the tendency for group members to match their performance to the least productive member (Paulus et al, 2002;Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993)). …”

“…For example, forming interactive groups with low anxious members was found to close the production gap between interactive and nominal brainstormers (Camacho & Paulus, 1995). The presentation of the facilitators or rules designed to improve group interaction and participation were suggested to eliminate the potential free-riding tendencies (Offner, Kramer, & Winter, 1996;Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996).…”

“…Electronic versions of group brainstorming where participants generate their ideas simultaneously without blocking each other but seeing their ideas at the top of the screen have been suggested for eliminating the production blocking (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;Gallupe, Bastianutti, & Cooper, 1991;Nijstad et al, 2003;Nunamaker, Briggs, & Mittleman, 1995;Valacich, Dennis, & Conolly, 1994). Downward matching, the tendency of group members to match their performance with the least productive member, which was also proposed to be a major factor in determining a relatively low performance of interactive groups (Borgatta & Sales, 1953;Camacho & Paulus, 1995;Collaros & Anderson, 1969;Harari & Graham, 1975;Karau & Williams, 1993;Kerr & Bruun, 1983), can be eliminated by the provision of comparison information or a high standard (Coskun, 2000;Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993).…”