Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a field experiment with students, we show that a specific, difficult novelty goal, whether presented alone or in conjunction with brainstorming rules, improves novelty and creativity in individuals’ idea generation relative to brainstorming rules alone when goal commitment is high. Because creativity is often correlated with idea quantity in brainstorming studies, we controlled for idea quantity in order to demonstrate that the improvement is not due to changes in the number of ideas generated. These findings suggest that specific, difficult goals beyond quantity can improve idea generation. We also separately measured practicality and effectiveness of participants’ ideas. The results of these analyses suggest that goal commitment might be an important determinant of usefulness, and deserves additional attention in studies of idea generation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the only prior study that we are aware of that carefully compares specific and vague creativity goals, Shalley (1991) did not find a main effect of goal specificity.

  2. A third approach in some applied research is to score novelty and usefulness separately, then employ a cut-off that designates all ideas above a given threshold for novelty and usefulness as “good ideas,” counts of which constitute an outcome measure (e.g., Meadow et al. 1959; Reinig et al. 2007).

  3. It is important to note that brainstorming researchers have differed among themselves in the degree to which they separate value-added from practicality (cf., Meadow et al. 1959; Sappington and Farrar 1982; Taylor et al. 1958). Also, brainstorming research has sometimes labeled combinations of novelty and usefulness “idea quality” rather than “creativity” (Mullen et al. 1991). For discussion of different quality metrics, see Reinig et al. 2007.

  4. Creativity researchers have also used the number of ideas generated as an indicator of a person’s creative ability (e.g., Guilford 1957). Thus, when the focus of creativity measurement is a person, idea quantity can be viewed as a part of the creativity construct. However, when the focus of creativity measurement is a product (e.g., an idea), idea quantity is closely related to, but distinct from, the creativity construct.

  5. Although no effects of brainstorming rules or novelty goals on idea quantity were expected in this study, some readers might nonetheless be curious about such connections. Because the brainstorming rules contain a vague quantity goal, one might wonder in particular whether conditions containing them would be likely to enhance idea quantity relative to a novelty goal presented alone. We tested this using multiple regression as in the other analyses, but with the novelty goal alone coded as the comparison condition. Supporting prior goal-based research (for discussion, see Litchfield 2009), we found no significant effects (F = .47, p > .79).

  6. As reported, we used average creativity. Other research has advocated for the use of other measures such as the single most creative idea generated by each individual/group or the number of ideas meeting a given threshold for creativity (for discussion, see Reinig et al. 2007). For completeness, we conducted each of these analyses. We used the number of ideas rated at least 8/10 by the sum of raters as the threshold for the “good ideas” measure (57/959 ideas, or approximately the top 6%). These analyses returned the same pattern of results, but the effects tended to be stronger (for number creative, Adjusted R 2 = .14; for most creative, Adjusted R 2 = .21).

  7. There is also evidence that individuals’ preferences for ideas might vary depending on whether they generate ideas alone or in a group (Putman and Paulus 2009).

References

  • Aiken, L. A., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audia, P. G., & Goncalo, J. A. (2007). Success and creativity over time: A study of inventors in the hard-disk drive industry. Management Science, 53, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, T. J. (1969). Personality, problem-solving procedure, and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27, 91–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Dmitrieva, J., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” across domains and cultures. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. (In press). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective-taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal.

  • Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review, 64, 110–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r wg : An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885–896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 816–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, R. C. (2009). Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea quantity? Motivation and Emotion, 33, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. (2006). Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 81–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1976). The technology of foolishness. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations (pp. 69–81). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadow, A., Parnes, S. J., & Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 413–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 206–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules, and decision making. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2007). On the measurement of ideation quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 47–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sappington, A. A., & Farrar, W. E. (1982). Brainstorming vs. critical judgment in the generation of solutions which conform to certain reality constraints. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). Improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups: The effects of three group goal-setting strategies. European Journal of Work and Occupational Psychology, 14, 400–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisskopf-Joelson, E., & Eliseo, T. S. (1961). An experimental study of the effectiveness of brainstorming. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics and Business Department, Washington and Jefferson College, 60 S. Lincoln St., Washington, PA, 15301, USA

    Robert C. Litchfield

  2. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36830, USA

    Jinyan Fan

  3. Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11756, USA

    Vincent R. Brown

Authors
  1. Robert C. Litchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinyan Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent R. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert C. Litchfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Litchfield, R.C., Fan, J. & Brown, V.R. Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals. Motiv Emot 35, 135–143 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9203-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9203-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation