Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

A number of studies on electronic brainstorming have found that large electronic groups can facilitate the number of ideas generated relative to control groups of similar numbers of solitary performers (nominal groups). Thus far there is no clear evidence for the basis of this facilitative effect. The most likely explanation is that group members benefit from exposure to the wide range of ideas in large groups. Since most electronic brainstorming studies appear to divide the presented ideas into subfolders to avoid overloading participants with too many ideas, this practice may be important for demonstration of a benefit of exposure to a large number of ideas. The present study was designed to assess the role of number of ideas and number of folders on individual idea generation and to eliminate some alternative interpretations for the group size effect. Participants performed an idea generation task on computers while being exposed to either no ideas, 28 ideas, or 112 ideas. The 28 and 112 ideas were presented in either one, four, or eight folders. The results indicated that only the number of ideas factor was important for facilitating idea generation.

via Understanding the Group Size Effect in Electronic Brainstorming.

This research introduces the concept of feeling known—or the belief that others have developed accurate opinions of one’s traits and characteristics—to the team literature. Various theoretical streams posit that acquiring a sense of being known and understood is a central human motivation that leads to positive outcomes for individuals. The present research links team member’s sense of feeling known with team member’s reports of interpersonal trust, personal learning, and project satisfaction in a large sample of project teams. Using a longitudinal study design, this research finds that feeling known is indeed a strong predictor of proximal and distal team member outcomes. Additional analyses reveal that team members’ sense of feeling known plays a role in predicting outcomes for both face-to-face and virtual team members, despite the fact that virtual team members report feeling less known than face-to-face team members. The practical significance of these results is discussed.

via The Role of Feeling Known for Team Member Outcomes in Project Teams.

Deception has been an important problem in interactive groups, impeding effective group communication and group work, yet deception detection in such a context remains understudied. Extrapolated from the interpersonal deception theory (IDT) and group composition research in cooperative contexts, this research proposes that group factors, including diversity and familiarity, have influence on the performance of deception detection. The measurement of group performance was not limited to success, as previous deception studies did, but included efficiency as well because it is fundamental to the effectiveness of deception detection. An analysis of data collected from a real-world online community found that behavioral familiarity had a positive effect, and gender diversity had a negative effect, on group success in deception detection. In addition, behavioral familiarity had a negative effect and functional diversity had a positive effect on the group efficiency of deception detection. The findings not only extend IDT in several important ways but also suggest the need to distinguish between noncooperative and cooperative groups, an important theoretical implication for group composition research.

via The Effects of Group Factors on Deception Detection Performance.

Research on information sharing within groups confirms a favoring of shared compared to unshared information. Social validation is considered to be the primary psychological mechanism explaining this group bias (Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999). Our focus here is on a process-related measurement of the social validation of shared information, as well as the social nonvalidation of unshared information in the discussion protocols of 31 decision-making groups. Results confirmed that mentioning shared information evoked social validations, whereas mentioning unshared information evoked nonvalidations (H1). Contrary to our expectation that social validation would encourage the repetition of shared information and social nonvalidation would discourage the repetition of nonshared information (H2), we found that nonvalidation of information enhanced the probability of repetition. We conclude that the need for social validation found in face-to-face groups can be overcome in a more task-oriented, goal-focused, and depersonalized media-based communication setting such as the one in this study.

via Social Validation of Shared and Nonvalidation of Unshared Information in Group Discussions.

This study examined the separate and joint impact of two standard, but seemingly conflicting brainstorming rules on idea generation in interacting and nominal groups: the free-wheeeling rule, which calls for the production of dissimilar ideas, and the build-on rule, which encourages idea combination and improvement. We also tested whether the superior performance of interacting groups found in several previous studies using a brainwriting technique may have been due to the different response formats employed by groups and individuals. Interacting groups and individuals generated ideas for improving their university under one of three sets of instructions. In one condition, participants were given the build-on rule, but not the free-wheeling rule, and in another condition, the reverse was true. In the third condition, both rules were provided. When the two rules were presented separately, interacting and nominal groups responded similarly, generating ideas from more semantic categories in response to the free-wheeling rule, and generating more practical ideas in response to the build-on rule. But when those rules were presented simultaneously, interacting groups generated ideas from fewer semantic categories than did nominal groups. In addition, interacting groups produced more ideas overall than nominal groups, but only when the two used different response formats.

via Goal Instructions, Response Format, and Idea Generation in Groups.