Pcr.wn. mdiGd. Drfi Vol. 19. No. I. pp. 73-80.

1995
Copyright 0 1995 Elaewer Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Grear Britam. All nghrs reserved
0191~8869(95)00009-7 0 I9 I -8869i95 59.50 + 0.00

PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AND GROUP VERSUS

INDIVIDUAL BRAINSTORMING

Adrian Fumham* and Tanya Yazdanpanahi

Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC I OAP, England

(Received I August 1994)

Summary-This study examined the effects of personality (psychoticism) and nominal vs real groups using
brainstorming techniques in problem solving. Subjects either brainstormed three problems on their own,
in pairs or in four person groups consisting of similar personality scores. There were six dependent measures:
total number of non-redundant ideas; number of ‘superior’ responses; a rating on the quality of the ideas;
the percentage of superior responses; a creativity production rate and a self-rating of imaginativeness. It was
predicted that high P scorers brainstorming alone would have the highest creative scores but when they
interact with similar types of individuals in group settings, their superior score rate would be overtaken by
equivalent groups of low creative individuals. This prediction was supported for four person groups on the
number and percentage of superior response measures and the mean creative rate measure. Dyads total
creativity scores were always lower than four person nominal or real groups or two individuals working
alone. There were almost no significant interactions between personality type, group size or the tasks used.
Implications for organizations is discussed and the direction of future research is examined.

INTRODUCTION

Brainstorming was first claimed to be an effective method of group problem solving by Osbom (19.57),
who argued that this technique increases the quality and quantity of ideas generated by group members.
Since this claim was made, researchers have been investigating the technique and the factors
influencing it (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Kameda & Sugimori, 1993).
Osbom stated that by engaging in brainstorming “the average person can think up twice as many
ideas when working with a group than when working alone” (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Taylor, Berry
and Block (1958) were the first to reject the claim. They found that nominal groups (which are made
up of Ss who ‘brainstorm alone’ and then had their non-redundant ideas combined) out-performed
interacting groups of the same number. This finding has been consistently replicated and the research
has significantly advanced during the last three decades. The most influential initial work was carried
out in the 1970s by Bouchard and his colleagues, where they manipulated among other things the group
size and Ss sex and even modified the brainstorming procedure itself, in order to understand what in
fact determined the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individuals (Bouchard, 1969, 1972;
Bouchard & Hare, 1970; Bouchard, Drauden & Bersaleux, 1974). The work conducted during the
1980s and 1990s tried to answer the question as to why individuals performed better than groups
(Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993; Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes & Camacho, 1993). Throughout the past few
years the theories and models proposed were used along with advanced computer technology to
develop electronic brainstorming systems. The most recent research illustrates their effectiveness in
overcoming problems such as criticism, production blocking, social loafing and evaluation
apprehension (Gallupe, Bastianutti & Cooper, 1991; Gallupe, Cooper, Grise & Bastianutti, 1994).
Brainstorming experiments usually involve unstructured, open-ended, ‘creative’ tasks. The tasks
traditionally used ranged from the ‘Thumbs problem’ (whereby the benefits and difficulties of growing
an extra thumb on each hand were assessed) to the ‘Blind World problem’ (which involved thinking
up the consequences if suddenly everybody went blind). The methodological diversity of these
experiments makes it very hard to compare one study with another. Attempts have been made to find
a universal index of performance (Thomberg, 1991) called the creative production per cent (CPP),
(group + individual output X 100). The majority of studies have made use of four person groups but
studies investigating dyads as well as much larger groups do exist. We reviewed the results of the
four-person groups conducted from 1958 to 198 1. They have a CPP range of 25-l 25. Although the

*To whom reprint requests should be addressed.

73
74 Adrian Fumham and Tanya Yazdanpanahi

majority lie around 60-70 CPP, the extreme values could be accounted for by methodological
differences, such as variations in the task requirements, differences in quality measurements (for
example, some studies assess quality as the average quality but others rate total quality and differences
in time allowance and brainstorming instructions).
In 1970 Bouchard and Hare investigated group size and compared groups of five, seven and nine
compared to the equivalent nominal groups. The previous experiments had never gone above
four-person groups, yet Osbom had suggested that optimal brainstorming groups was between five
and 10. Their prediction that the growth curve of nominal groups would level off and be overtaken
by that of the real groups was not confirmed. Instead they found that there was a nominal group effect
up to groups of nine-persons.
Considerable research has been directed at answering the question: “why are real groups repeatedly
less productive than the same number of individuals working alone?” Diehl and Stroebe (1987)
identified three potential group effects; social loafing, evaluation apprehension and production
blocking. Working in groups has traditionally been seen to have potentially two opposing effects; that
of social loafing and that of social facilitation. Social loafing is described as the finding that interacting
group members (with pooled outputs) will exert less effort than similar participants working alone
(Harkins, 1987). Depending on the task however, findings from social facilitation studies have shown
that group participant’s performance which are individually identifiable will be greater than the output
from Ss working alone on tasks. In order to explain the latter phenomenon, investigators have urged
along the lines of a ‘preference theory’ and an ‘evaluation theory’. The former theory argues that the
mere presence of others leads to an increased motivation to perform and the latter theory argues that
the presence of others becomes associated with evaluation and/or competition among other things,
which again will increase the motivation to perform. Social loafing studies have tended to identify
a ‘group vs individual effect’ rather than an ‘evaluation effect’.
Williams, Haskin and Latare (198 1) demonstrated that identifiability of individual output was an
important factor involved in evaluation. Harkins and Jackson (1985) tested this notion using a
brainstorming technique and found that identifiability was a factor involved in evaluation but only
when this output evaluation took place as a result of competition with co-workers.
Kerr and Bruun (1983) claimed that social loafing depended heavily on task features: whether the
task was disjunctive (where only the best answers counted) or additive (where outputs were summed).
They claimed that dispensability (and hence the likelihood to loaf) matters less with additive tasks
than disjunctive tasks. The possibility of redundancy may in fact promote dispensability. Social loafing
could be deemed responsible for only a small proportion of productivity loss and other processes must
be contributing. This may be a consequence of the nature of brainstorming, which requires little effort,
as opposed to physical tasks where loafing may account for more loss (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).
A second possible interpretation which has been offered to account for low real group productivity
is ‘evaluation apprehension’. Many individuals refrain from expressing their views in various social
settings such as the classroom or the boardroom because they are uncertain as to how they are going
to be received. This notion of ‘fear of negative evaluation from other group members’ has been
investigated as a plausible cause of productivity loss in brainstormin g groups; but the results have been
somewhat contradictory. Colaros and Anderson (1969) concluded that productivity was lowest in the
condition which aimed to produce the highest amount of evaluation apprehension. This finding
differed from Maginn and Harris (1980) who found that: “individual productivity in the presence of
observers was not significantly different from that of individual subjects working without observers”.
However, the methodology of the two experiments was dissimilar in that the former experiment
induced evaluation apprehension by deceiving the Ss with respect to the number of experts that were
present in the group, but the latter experiment manipulated evaluation apprehension by telling Ss that
three external judges were observing them. Furthermore, this latter experiment investigated only
individuals working alone and aimed to lower productivity (to that of real groups) with apprehension,
but the former experiment dealt with real groups and aimed to illustrate an increase in productivity
in the ‘no-expert’ condition. The lack of support found in this area indicates that a more powerful cause
of productivity loss exists.
‘Production blocking’ is the notion that due to the fact that only one individual can speak at a given
time in a group, other group members are prohibited from airing their ideas when you occur to them.
This waiting time can cause them to forget (due to the limitation of the short term memory) or consider
 Group vs individual brainstorming 75

the idea to be less original or relevant with respect to the presently viewed idea. This opposes the
original claim that brainstorming allows individuals to verbalize their ideas which in turn would
stimulate other members.. Traditionally brainstorming has adopted ‘equal man-hour’ methodology.
Members of real groups of size n, have only llnth of the amount of speaking time of the equivalent
nominal group members. By varyin,0 nominal group member’s time allowance, so that it was
comparable to real group member’s assumed time allowance, Diehl and Stroebe (1987) tested whether
this procedural explanation of the blocking effect was valid. Two experiments manipulating time
allowance or even speaking time allowance showed that it failed to produce a reduction in the
productivity gap between real and nominal groups.
New computer aided techniques to ‘unblock brainstorms’ have only recently been constructed and
tested (Gallupeetaf., 1991; Gallupe, Dennis, Cooper, Valacich, Bastianutti & Nunamaker, 1992). This
new technique is called ‘electronic brainstorming’ and aims to overcome the problems of social
loafing, evaluation apprehension and production blocking. Electronic brainstorming involves group
members sitting at computer terminals and typing in their ideas but also having full access to the others’
ideas as they are produced. It aims to intergrate the two important and advantageous features of
nominal and real group brainstormin g, namely being able to freely generate ideas and also being able
to share respectively. Ideas on the screen have not been found to be distracting which was the case
with traditional brainstorming (Gallupe et nl., 1991). Simultaneous contributions lessen the potential
effect of blocking and the anonymous nature of the technique alleviates evaluation apprehension. In
Gallupe’s original and pioneering study comparing electronic and non-electronic brainstorming, he
found that electronic brainstorming four-persons groups outperformed the four-person traditional
(verbal) brainstorming groups and failed to find a difference between nominal and interacting groups
using the electronic technique. In electronic brainstorming groups, performance increased with group
size, which contrasts with non-electronic brainstorming groups, which failed to increase with group
size growth. Electronic brainstorming was not advantageous when only two people were involved (and
thus anonymity and production blocking was at its lowest) but as group size and therefore anonymity
and production blocking increased, the true potential of this new technique was exhibited. Per-person
productivity and average per-person output of ideas tends to remain stable with an increase in group
size (unlike non-electronic brainstorming where a fall was noted). This was attributed to the fact that
production blocking remained at a constant low level throughout different electronic brainstorming
sessions. Lastly, satisfaction is greater with electronic brainstorming groups and this increases with
group size, contrary to non-electronic brainstorming.
This study is concerned specifically with individual differences and group interaction in
brainstorming tasks. The brainstormin g literature appears to have neglected individual differences
which could be a major source of variation. More specifically, it is concerned whether ‘creative
thinkers’ (as measured by their psychoticism score) are superior in group or individual brainstorming
tasks. Few studies in the area of brainstorming have considered individual differences, even the most
obvious possibility that ‘trait-creativity’ might interact with individual vs group production of ideas.
Since the last century creativity has been linked with psychosis. Eysenck (1992) argued that as a
result of evidence identifying relatives or descendants or psychotics as highly creative, creativity is
a function of psychoticism (P), which is a predispositional trait to the development of psychotic
symptoms (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). This concept is very similar to Bleuler’s ‘schizoid personality’
which was also regarded as predisposing to creativity (Bleuler, 1978) as well as being noticed prior
to psychotic breakdowns (Claridge, 1985). Nevertheless, the two terms psychosis and psychoticism
(of which the latter predisposes a person to the former) must not be confused and it is probably the
latter which is most closely linked to creativity (Rushton, 1990).
Five different sources of evidence have been presented which support the P-creativity link model:
first, individuals genetically related to psychotics (and thus likely to be high on the psychoticism scale)
have been shown to be highly creative. Heston (1966) found the offspring of schizophrenic mothers
(and raised elsewhere) were highly artistic and imaginative compared to non-schizophrenics.
Secondly, P has been correlated with tested creativity using creativity tests (Woody & Claridge, 1977).
Third, P was found to be related to creative achievement of a higher order (Gotz & Gotz, 1979). Fourth,
highly creative individuals exhibit greater psychopathology than less creative individuals (Eysenck,
1992) and this appears greater than chance would predict. Fifth different cognitive styles have been
regarded to be characteristic of psychotics, high P-scorers and creative achievers (Eysenck, 1992).
76 Adrian Fumham and Tanya Yazdanpanahi

Three hypotheses were proposed suggesting that there will be a main effect for group size (given
the fairly consistent brainstorming literature): personality (given the recent P-score literature) and
more importantly an interaction between personality and group size. It was hypothesized:

(1) That nominal brainstorming groups will outperform real interacting groups of two or four
individuals. (That is, nominal groups of individuals perform better than interacting groups.)
(2) That high P scorers will have higher scores on a creativity test than low P scorers. (That is, there
will be a main effect of personality.)
(3) That (high P scorers) brainstorming alone will have the highest rate of creative achievement but
when placed in interacting groups consisting of similar highly scoring individuals (on the
psychoticism scale), this rate is overtaken by low P scorers working alone. (That is the benefit
of ‘trait-creativity’ is washed out in groups because of production blocking.)

METHOD

Subjects
Fifty-two psychology first year undergraduates took part in the experiment. The ratio of
males:females was 3:7 but two-thirds of the male Ss fell into the high P group. Sex and P are thus
confounded and as a result every effort was made to keep the sex distribution in groups consistent.
The age range was approximately between 18 and 50 yr old but most were between 19 and 24 yr old
(mean 22.3; SD = 7.1).

Independent variable
Creativity rype. High or low creativity was predetermined on the basis of the S’s P-score on the
EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The P-score ranged from 0 to 16 but only two Ss in the sample
scored above nine. Ss who scored above four were placed in the high group and those who scored
four or less, were put in the low group. The modal score for this population is in fact four.

Dependent variable
Ss were required to complete three tasks; the first took 5 min and required the Ss to suggest as many
different (good trade) names for a new chocolate bar. They were given the description of a new type
of chocolate bar about to go onto the market and asked to think up a good name for it. The second
task, which took 10 min, involved studying a cartoon sketch and writing down as many ideas as to
what may occur next. This was a typical picture from a cartoon series but incomplete with a full set
of pictures which could make up the final joke. Ss were required to think up and very briefly describe
alternative endings/next steps in the story. The third task which lasted 15 min, involved thinking up
a complete television advert about a new cough medicine on the market. The medicine was described
along with particular advantages and disadvantages. This task was like the first but more complicated
in that it involved thinking through the full ‘story-board’ of pictures and text for the advertisement
but not necessarily the product name. Ss were told that both the quality and quantity of their ideas
counted and that they should produce as many as possible in the time allocated. From these tasks it
was possible to derive six different dependent variables:

(1) The total number of non-redundant (i.e. non-overlapping) ideas.

(2) The mean creativity score measured on a scale of l-5 by trained raters consisting of students
who had studied the creativity literature (Cooper, 1991).
(3) The number of superior responses. A superior response was an idea which scored -Cor 5 on the
above creativity rating.
(4) The percentage of superior responses out of the total number of non-redundant ideas.
(5) The creative production rate. This was the total number of ideas which were thought up for each
task, divided by the number of individuals working on the task.
(6) Self rating of imaginative ability on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high).
 Group vs individual brainstorming 77

Table I. Meannumber of non-redundant and superior ideas produced by the various group\

Glenn number, of
Total ,V = 52’ non-redundant ideas Supenor idea

(A) High Psychoticism Real group (four-persons) 49.33 10.75

(B) High Psychoticism Nominal group (four-persons) 133.00 44.00
(0 High Psychoticism Real group (two-persons) 52.00 IO.80
CD) High Psychoticism Nominal group (two-persons) 66.50 22 00
(E) Low Psychoricism Real group (four-persons) 15.so I-t.25
(F) Low Psychoticism Nominal group (four-persons) 133.00 21.00
(G) Low Psychoticism Real group (two-persons) 3 I .oo 2.67
(H) Low Psychoticlsm Nominal group (two-persons) 46.50 I OS0

*There were two sets of each of the groups specified but three proups in the G and H.

Scoring and analysis

Quantity. The non-redundant ideas were counted, but when two identical ideas were contributed
in the nominal groups, they only counted as one idea. The different ideas could easily be identified.
In task I, a name constituted an idea-e.g. ‘Zebra bar”. In task II, each small part of the story
constituted an idea-e.g. “the charmer charmed the man in order to run off with the woman”. This
was counted as one idea. In task III, the Ss described an advert through a number of points. such as
the opening scene, the slogan, the name of the medicine and so forth, and each of these points was
counted as an idea. This was checked by a second person to ensure reliability.
Qua/iv. The quality was rated according to originality on a five point scale [ 1 (low)-5 (high)], by
one experimenter. In order to test score reliability, a second experimenter also rated 2.5% of the total
ideas. The results showed that the raters agreed on 92.17% on the scores and the remainder were
negotiated till a 100% agreement was obtained.

Procedure
In all 80 Ss completed the EPQ and from this number a subset were contacted based on their P scores.
Once the Ss had been allocated to their creativity group type (either high or low based on their P scores)
and were randomly put in a group type, they were given a booklet which contained a set of standard
brainstorming instructions (Bouchard & Hare, 1970). The booklet also contained the instructions
concerning the nature of the tasks and the tasks themselves. In the group conditions, one member was
nominated to write down the ideas thought up by the group was remind that each person’s contribution
would be evaluated by means of a tape-recorder. The groups worked in small cubicles and used blank
white paper provided to record their ideas. The experimenter started the group off on the first task
and timed them with a stop-watch for 5 min. This was repeated for the second and third task for timings
of 10 and 15 min, respectively. The tape recorder was switched on at the start of the session and turned
off only at the end of the experiment. The main purposes of the tape-recorder was to firstly. make
the Ss feel that their contributions were counting and secondly, to provide a back-up in case Ss did
not write their answers down. The second reason was to induce some evaluation apprehension and
minimise social loafing. The individual sessions were not tape-recorded.

RESULTS

To get some idea of the results over all the three different tasks, data was pooled. Table 1 shows
the unit of analysis (dependent variable) which was the total mean number of non-redundanr ideas
and the number of superior ideas for both real groups (four-person and two-person) and nominal
groups (four-person and two-person groups). The t-tests were carried out between (i) high P-scoring
real and nominal four-person groups superior ideas (t = 6.40; P < 0.005) and number of ideas
(t = 6.65; P < 0.05); (ii) high P-scoring real and nominal two-person groups superior ideas (t = 2.8 I ;
P < 0.05) and number of ideas (t = 1.Ol; ns); (iii) low P-scoring real and nominal four-person groups
superior ideas (t = 0.94; ns) and number of ideas (t = 10.55; P < 0.001); (iv) low P-scoring real and
nominal two-person groups (t = 1.35; ns) and number of ideas (t = 1.80; ns); (v) generally real and
nominal four-person groups (t = 3.27; P < 0.001) and number of ideas (t = 13.68; P < 0.001): (vi)
78 Adrian Furnham and Tanya Yzzdanpanahi

generally real and nominal two-person groups (f = 1.92; P < 0.05) and number of ideas (f = 1.90:
P < 0.05).
The r-tests showed that on the measurement of total number (as opposed to superiority) of
non-redundant ideas, in either high or low P conditions, the two-person nominal groups did no better
than the real interacting pairs. When the data was collapsed across P groups this comparison between
interacting and nominal pairs, only just becomes significant. With the four-person comparison,
interacting groups produced significantly fewer ideas than their equivalent nominal group. This was
true for both high and low P groups.
However, this preliminary analysis obscures the task differences which may have led to quite
different patterns of findings. The scores for the six different measures testing the performance of
individuals working alone, interacting pairs and interacting groups of four persons, were then
subjected to a 2 X 3 X 3 mixed ANOVA (two personality groups; three working conditions; three
tasks) with high/low psychoticism scores groups and working conditions (interacting groups of four,
two and working alone) being between group measures and tasks being a within variable.
The first measure, ro&zl number of ideas, showed only a main effect of task. The first task produced
more ideas than the second and third, respectively [F (250) = 8.20, P O.OOl]. However, there were
no other main effects or interactions. Superior responses (which are related to the quality of answers
produced), showed three main effects: that of P score type , group and task. High P scorers produced
a greater number of superior answers (F= 6.94, P<O.OOl). Regardless of P score four-person
nominal (as opposed to real) groups produced a greater number than individuals or pairs. with the latter
group producing the least number of superior responses (F = 5.80, P< 0.001). A main effect of task
reveals that task II produced the most number of superior answers, followed by task I and task III
(F = 4.93, P < 0.001). Although the interaction was not significant it is worth noting. that it showed
high P scorers alone do better than low P scorers alone on this measure (F = 2.96, P < 0.07).
The mean creative rating revealed two main effects of P and group type and a creativity XP
interaction, with a similar pattern to the interaction described above. Again high P scorers produce
a higher mean creativity score than low P scorers working on their own (F = 6.87; P < 0.001). The
trend is the same for pairs but generally this mean is lower than for individuals (F = 7.95; P < 0.001).
When low P four-person groups interact, their mean creativity rate exceeds that of their equivalent
high P group. However. the former four-person mean did not surpass that achieved by high P scorers.
The percenrage ofsuperior ans\vers out of the total number of ideas (100%) again produced main
effects of P (F = 4.76: P < 0.05) and group type (F = 7.08; P < 0.0 1) and a group X P interaction
(F = 2.89; P < 0.07). This interaction again shows a dip in the trend with interacting pairs and a cross
with low and high four-person groups.
The creative production mensrcrement produced a significant main effect of group (F = 15.55,
P < O.OOl), in that individuals had the greatest production rate followed by dyads then four person
groups. There was also a main effect of task (F = 0.329; P < 0.05) which when analysed showed that
the first task yielded the greatest production followed by the second and third tasks.

DISCUSSION

Two of the three hypotheses were supported. The first prediction was that nominal brainstorming
groups will outperform real interacting groups confirmed numerous previous investigations. The
nominal groups consisted of either two or four people and (ignoring P scores) nominal groups
outperformed real groups in both of the measures selected for this particular analysis. This result was
repeated for high P scorers four-person group comparisons and for high P scorers two-person
comparisons but only in the superior response measure. The low P scoring group scores supported
the hypothesis but only with the four-person groups. The non-significant results occurred in three out
of the four two-person P-score type comparisons. Overall, when the data for P score group for the
two-person groups was collapsed, the comparison only just became significant. This suggests a
potential difference between dyads and other kinds of interacting groups, When there are only two
individual working on a problem each member can be evaluated much more easily, and there is
probably less production blocking.
Previously when the general group size trends have been analysed, it has been observed that for
 Group vs individual brainstorming 79

the Creative Production Percent an increase with group size ceased at two-person groups (Bouchard
& Hare, 1970). This and other results (Torrance, 1974) led to speculation that dyads were in fact a
special group. In the present study, the nominal two-person groups can be observed to produce more
non-redundant ideas and more superior ideas than the real groups but apart from the significant high
P score group, they just fail to be statistically significant.
The second hypothesis predicted that P scorers would generally have a high creative quality
answers. Despite the fact that the study contained a relatively small number Ss and that only two of
the Ss scored above nine on the EPQ P-scale the hypotheses were confirmed. The results of this analysis
therefore support Eysenck’s theory of a relationship between personality (psychoticism) and
creativity. On a number of the measures, such as superiority of responses, percentage of superior
responses and mean creativity rate, a main effect of creativity type (P) was found. Therefore, with
the limitations suggested above, those that were classed as having high P-scores (high creativity/orig-
inality traits) tended to produce a higher level of creative responses. Their ideas were constantly of
a high quality and there was a larger percentage of them compared to those individuals categorized
as having low creative abilities.
The third hypothesis was that in high P scoring Ss brainstorming alone would produce the highest
rate of non-redundant and superior responses, but when these individuals are placed in interacting
groups consisting of similar high scores this superior rate would be overtaken by low P scoring groups.
Highly creative people have been claimed to be self-assertive, non-conformists and independent
(Barron, 1972). It is for this reason, among others, that they may not be able to share, build and work
on others’ ideas, which will push the group productivity down even more. Creativity x group
interactions approached, but were strictly not significant.
The interaction found with the self-rating measure was slightly different to the above three
significant findings. When individuals are alone, low P scorers rate themselves as having a fairly high
level of imaginative ability (mean = 6.50) whereas those individuals who scored highly on the P scale
visualise themselves as having rather poor imaginative abilities (mean = 4.82) when they are on their
own. This however changes and tends to be in line with the classification scheme, when similarly
grouped individuals get together as interacting two- or four-person groups. Thus, high P socrers rate
themselves accordingly (pairs = 7.00 and four-person = 6.70) as do low P scorers (pairs = 5.50 and
four-person = 5.72). It is possible that when individuals are placed in a group with their own type,
their initial either over- or under-estimations adjust accordingly, as they have people to compare
themselves to and form a more realistic view.
Main effects for group type were found for superior responses, mean creativity rate and percentage
of superior responses which are all quality measures. Thus, regardless of whether high P scorers were
better or worse than their equivalent low scorer types, the four-persons group productivity was higher
than individuals. This is to be expected, as a group of four people will inevitably produce more ideas
as a whole and this, as previously mentioned, is a contributing factor causing people to believe that
they will achieve more in a group! The creative production rate however confirms that this measure
per person decreases as group size increases. The interesting characteristics in this finding, is that for
the quality measures, the trend from individual alone to four-person groups always dips with the
interacting dyads. This was confirmed by post hoc Scheffe tests. Thus, an individual alone seems to
have a higher mean creativity rate, a greater number and percentage of superior responses than two
interacting individuals (regardless of creativity type) and four person groups have the overall highest
quality even though creative production per person is lowest for the latter group. What causes this
‘dyad dip’ is however not clear.
The direction of further research in this area may utilize electronic brainstorming technology. The
investigations into this technique have shown it to be promising with respect to an increasing group
size. Interestingly enough, the findings using electronic brainstorming methods have found that there
was no difference between traditional brainstorming techniques and electronic brainstorming for
interacting dyads (Gallupe er al., 1992). Due to the failure to find a four-person real vs nominal
electronic brainstorming difference (Gallupe et al., 199 l), the focus of attention can be on either type
of group. More specifically, what particular combination of individuals (that is, the ratio of males to
females and the ratio of high to low P scorers) making up the group and of what size, produces the
optimal condition is unclear. An example of a potentially successful group, is perhaps one or two high
P scorers constituting the ‘power source’ of creative ideas, and the rest of the group made up of low
80 Adrian Furnham and Tanya Yazdanpanahi

or middling P scorers who may be better at working on and combining these ideas and who are better
at appreciating responses made by their co-workers. The need for identifying different combinations
of groups is perhaps more relevant to traditional brainstorming methods because as a result of the
nature of electronic methods, the above problems may not even arise. Nevertheless these results
suggest that P scores do have an impact on the quality and quantity of ‘ideas’ produced in traditional
brainstorming tasks.

REFERENCES

Barron, F. (1972). Arrisrs in the making. New York: Seminar Press.

Bleuler, M. (1978). The schizophrenia disorders. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bouchard, T. J. (1969). Personality, problem-solving procedure and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology Monograph. 53, (I, Pt. 2).
Bouchard, T. J. (1972). A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures. Journal of Applied Psycholog.v, 59.4 1812 I.
Bouchard, T. J. & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. JaurnalafApplied Ps.vchology.
54, 5 l-55.
Bouchard, T. J., Drauden. G. & Barsaloux, J. (I 974). Brainstorming procedure, group size and sex as determinants of the
problem solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 135-l 38.
Buyer, L. S. (I 988). Creative problem solving: A comparison of performance under different instructions. Journal of CreatiL,e
Behaviour. 22, 55-6 I.
Claridge, G. (1985). Origins of mental illness. Oxford: Blackwell.
Colaros, P. & Anderson, L. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1159-l 63.
Dennis, A. & Valacich, J. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Ps.vcho1og.v.
78. 531-537.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generation groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal
of Personaliv and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theoF. Institute of Psychiatry. University of London
(unpublished).
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. Ci. (1975). The Evsenck personalitv quesrionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, H. & Eysenck, S. B. C. (1976). Psvcho&m as a dimension of personaliry. London: Hodder 8: Stoughton.
Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. &Cooper, W. H. (I 991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76, 137-142.
Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R.. Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S.. Bastianutti, L. M. & Nuna Maker, J. F. (1992). Electronic
brainstorming and group size. Academy of Managemenr Journal, 35, 350-369.
Gallupe, R. B., Cooper, W. H., Grise. M.-L. & Bastianutti. L. M. (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. Journal ofApplied
Psycho1og.v. 79, 77-86.
Gotz, K. & Gotz, K. (1979). Personality characteristics of successful artists. Perceprual and Motor SkiUs, 49, 919-929.
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Ps.vchologv, 23, I-18.
Harkins. S. G. &Jackson, J. M. (1985).The role ofevaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personalif?andSocial Psycholog>
Bulletin, l/(4) 457465.
Heston, L. (I 966). Psychatric disorders in foster-home reared children of schizophrenic mothers. British Journal of Ps.vchiatT,
112, 819-825.
Kameda, T. & Sugimori. S. (1993). Psychological entrapment in group decision making: An assigned decision rule and a
group think phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog!. 65, 282-292.
Kerr, N. & Bruun, S. (1983). Dispensability of members effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
Maginn, B. K. & Harris, R. J. (1980). Effects of anticipated evaluation on individual brainstorming performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 65, 2 19-225.
Osbom, A. F. (1957). Applied imaginarion New York: Scribner.
Paulus, P. & Dzindolet, M. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personalit! and Social
Psychology, 64, 575-586.
Paulus, P., Dzindolet, M.. Poletes, G. & Camacho, L. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming. Personalit>
and Social Psychology Bullerin, 19. 79-89.
Rushton, J. P. (I 990). Creativity, Intelligence and Psychoticism. Personalig and individual D#ferences, / 1. I29 I- 1298.
Stroebe, W.. Diehl, M. & Abakoumkin. (1991). The illusion ofgroup effectiviv. (p. 33) The Psychological Institute. University
of Tuebingen.
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.
Thomberg, T. H. (I 99 I). Group size and member diversity influence on creative performance. Journal of Creative BehaLiour,
25, 324-333.
Torrance, E. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms & technical manual. Lexington, MA: Gunn.
Williams, K., Harkin, S. & Latane, B. (I 98 I). Identifiability as a deterrent fo social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-3 I I.
Woody, E. & Claridge, G. (1977). Psychoticism and thinking. Brirish JournalofSocialand ClinicaL Ps.vcho/ogF, 16.241-258.