the-brainstorming-myth1(2)

If outcomes are highly valued high levels of effort

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: when individual behaviors are not instrumental in obtaining those outcomes. For example, when individual differences in collectivism and need for belonging should have less impact. q “Communication among group members should enhance collective effort when it enhances perceptions of task importance or social responsibility, but should hinder collective effort when it relays negative task attitudes or contributes to feelings of dispensability. “Group structural factors and member roles may profoundly influence collective effort in ongoing groups by affecting perceptions of the instrumentality of one’s inputs and the value of various outcomes. For example, leaders and highstatus group members may view their inputs as more instrumental to group outcomes, and norms encouraging social responsibility and hard work within groups should have a positive effect on collective effort, especially in cohesive or highly valued groups.” (p702) However, the methodology of the two experiments differed. The former experiment induced evaluation apprehension by deceiving the subjects on the number of experts who were present in the group. The latter experiment manipulated evaluation apprehension by telling subjects that three external judges were observing them. Furthermore, this latter experiment investigated only individuals working alone and aimed to use apprehension to lower productivity (to that of real groups). The former experiment dealt with real groups and aimed to show that productivity was higher when there were no experts involved. The conclusion to be drawn from these experiments is that evaluation methods are not the most powerful cause of the lower productivity of real brainstorming groups. Nevertheless, being in a real brainstorming group can, despite the rules, lead certain individuals not to give their best, most innovative ideas. Winter 2000 26 Adrian Furnham Production Blocking Production blocking is the idea that, because only one individual can speak at a given time in a group, the other group members are prevented from airing their ideas when they occur to them. This waiting time can cause them to forget (due to the limitation of the shortterm memory) or to consider the idea to be less original or relevant with respect to the presently-viewed idea. This contradicts the original claim that brainstorming allows individuals to express their ideas, which in turn would stimulate other members. Traditionally, brainstorming has adopted “equal person-hour” methodology. This in actual fact allows members of real groups of size n to have only one nth of the amount of speaking time of the equivalent nominal group members. By varying nominal group members’ time allowance, so that it was comparable to real group members’ assumed time allowance, Diehl and Stroebe (1987) tested whether this procedural explanation of the blocking effect was valid. Two experiments which tried to test this by manipulating time allowance – or even speaking-time allo...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 09/30/2013.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online