This research compared the use of an electronic meeting system tool to a manual group process in large and small groups in a controlled laboratory experiment. Outcomes measured include the quality of decision, the time taken in various stages of the decision making process, and group member satisfaction. A research model of the variables influencing group decision making was developed. The six independent variables included in this model are group size, the rule by which the group makes a decision, the incentives driving the group, the distribution of useful information within the group, the task complexity, and the meeting support (electronic or manual). In this research group size and method of support were manipulated, while the other variables were controlled. A decision-making task was developed for this research to specify and manipulate the six independent variables. The task described a product mix problem in which information on each product was given to group members. The group shared information and jointly determined an outcome. The group used an unanimous decision rule to choose a solution. A numerical outcome was used to objectively measure decision quality. Each member of the group received a cash payoff determined by the group's solution as incentive in accomplishing the task. All groups found the optimal solution. The simplicity of the task may have minimized the differences found between groups. There was no significant difference in general member satisfaction or time to decision. Prior knowledge was found to influence general member satisfaction and the time needed for the group to share information. Members of large groups perceived more uneven distribution of participation than members of small groups. Voting differences were very large: large groups took significantly more votes than small groups, and electronic groups took significantly more votes than manual groups. "Conjunctive" and "disjunctive" task descriptions are used to discuss task/tool interaction.

Corporations spend a great deal of time and money trying to facilitate innovation in their employees. The act of introducing something new, a product or a service that is viable and innovative is often increased by enhancing or nurturing creativity.This experimental study investigated the effect of group verbally interactive brainstorming (social interaction) on creativity, not by comparing the number of ideas generated on a simple task in a brainstorming session, but by assessing creativity in the final product of a complex heuristic task. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of group interactive brainstorming to individual brainstorming on individual creativity assessed in the final product.The hypothesis which was tested in this study was that participation in group verbally interactive brainstorming prior to developing a design solution would not facilitate creativity in the final product more than individual brainstorming. Indeed, it was hypothesized that individuals brainstorming in teams.Participants were 36 interior design students in a FIDER accredited program at Virginia Tech. The Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (MSFM) was administered before beginning the experiment in order to determine individual differences in creativity. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a treatment group than participated in group verbally interactive brainstorming prior to developing a product individually, or a control group that participated in an individual brainstorming session. All subjects then created a design project individually that was assessed for creativity by judges who were recruited from professional interior design organizations. Creativity was measures using the Consensual Assessment for Interior Design Creativity (Barnard, 1992). A post session questionnaire also was used to measure attitudes and perceptions of the subjects about the creative process.Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences when creativity scores were compared between two brainstorming groups. That is, projects developed by interior design students did not differ significantly in creativity systematically between the two brainstorming techniques. When scores on the two dependent variables of secondary interest (novelty and appropriateness) were compared between groups they also did not differ significantly.Responses to post-session questionnaires indicated that although students found it more difficult to generate ideas in a group, they still believed they would generate more ideas and preferred to generate ideas in a group rather than alone. However, when developing a project students preferred to work independently.This study supports past research which suggests that group verbally interactive brainstorming does not enhance creativity. In this study, interactive brainstorming neither enhanced nor constrained creativity in the final product. The creativity scores were higher for those in the individual brainstorming condition, although not significantly so. This study also supports findings which indicate that people still believe they will generate more ideas in a group and that they prefer to generate ideas as a group. / Ph. D.

「腦力激盪技術」(brainstorming)是 Osborn(1957)所提出的思考或開會技巧，並且被廣泛地使用，特別是用於進行團體創造。但晚進關於腦力激盪的研究發現；傳統腦力激盪團體（真團體，面對面接觸、互動式團體）的創造力表現不如名義式腦力激盪團體（假團體，結合個別腦力激盪成果）的原因之一是：受試者在真實的團體中會害怕被評價，因此，Camacho(1991)探討評價恐懼(communication apprehension) 與腦力激盪形式的交互影響，而 Dennis 和 Valacich (1993)則設計了一個避免評價恐懼的實驗，將電子暨運用於腦力激盪團體，稱之為「電子腦力激盪」(electronic brainstorming)。 本研究主要是綜合 Camacho (1991)與 Dennis 和 Valacich (1993)的研究為基礎，以 312 名大學生為研究對象，進行 2 （高、低溝通恐懼）×2（互動式、名義式腦力激盪）×2（電子、非電子）之三因子受試者問實驗設計，探討溝通恐懼、腦力激盪形式、採用電子腦力激盪技術與否對於團體創造力與成員對團體歷程感受的交互作用之影響。經分析後所得到的結果如下： 1.當 4 人一組時，低溝通恐懼組的團體創造力顯著高於高溝通恐懼組，且對於團體歷程的感受有：自在、放鬆、興奮，較喜愛在團體中進行腦力激盪，認為其他成員可以刺激自己想出更多的觀念等。但高溝通恐懼者對於團體歷程的感受則有：擔心、煩躁不安、焦慮，較喜愛獨自進行腦力激盪，且在意其他成員認為自己的觀念是「愚蠢的」等。 2.電子式腦力激盪的團體的創造力顯著高於非電子組，且電子組在互動歷程中較機警、有壓力要和別人想出的觀念一樣多，較容易擔心、焦慮。 3.名義式與互動式腦力激盪的團體創造力並沒有顯著不同，但成員對於團體歷程的感受卻有明顯差異。受試者在互動式腦力激盪團體中會有：緊張、煩躁不安、焦慮、不自在、怕難為情等感受，且容易因為擔心其他成員給予自己負面的評價，因而不敢把自己的想法表達出來。相對地：名義式腦力激盪組的受試者對於團體則有機警、鎮定、放鬆、隨時覺察到自己、興奮等感受。 4.不論受試者溝通恐懼的程度如何，採用電子腦力激盪技術時，互動式與名義式腦力激盪組的團體創造力並沒有顯著差異，但互動組顯著出現緊張、煩躁不安、不自在等感受。而當不採用電子技術時，名義式的團體創造力則顯著高於互動式腦力激盪組。 5.對低溝通恐懼者而言，使用電子腦力激盪時，無論腦力激盪形式（互動式或名義式）為何，團體創造力都顯著地較未採用電子技術時好，且成員對於在團體歷程中較容易隨時覺察到自己。而對高溝通恐懼者而言，雖然使用電子技術時，受試者容易對團體歷程產生：緊張、煩躁不安、焦慮、不自在、怕難為情等感受，但只有採取「電子--互動式」腦力激盪時，才能提昇高溝通恐懼受試者的團體創造力。