SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikoloji Dergisi / 2005 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 55

The Effect of Divergent Thinking and Group Composition on Idea Generation in Brainwriting

Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi

Hamit COŞKUN
Pages
39–42
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings were discussed in the lights of the cognitive stimulation and matching perspectives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the current study was to assess the influence of convergent and divergent tasks on the idea generation performance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants were randomly instructed to generate as many words as they could come up with on the either similarities (convergent task) or differences (divergent task) for the given dual words within the 10 minutes and then brainstormed as dyads in either nominal (nonsharing) and interactive (sharing) condition in a brainwriting paradigm (Paulus & Yang, 2000).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings were discussed in the lights of the cognitive stimulation and matching perspectives.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to assess the influence of convergent and divergent tasks on the idea generation performance. The participants were randomly instructed to generate as many words as they could come up with on the either similarities (convergent task) or differences (divergent task) for the given dual words within the 10 minutes and then brainstormed as dyads in either nominal (nonsharing) and interactive (sharing) condition in a brainwriting paradigm (Paulus & Yang, 2000). All participants as dyads were randomly assigned to either divergent-divergent, divergent-convergent, or convergent-convergent thinking conditions. The dyads in the divergent thinking condition generated more ideas than those in the convergent and mixed thinking conditions. Interactive dyads had also higher number of ideas than nominal ones. These findings were discussed in the lights of the cognitive stimulation and matching perspectives.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, düşünce üretim performansı üzerinde ıraksak ve yakınsak düşünme görevlerinin etkisini değerlendirmektir. Denekler, mümkün olduğunca çok sayıda verilen sözcük çiftlerinin benzerlikleri (yakınsak görev) veya farklılıklarıyla (ıraksak görev) ilgili sözcükleri 10 dakika içinde yaratmaya yönlendirildikten sonra, çiftler halinde nominal (paylaşmama) ve etkileşim (paylaşma) koşullarında beyin yazımı modeline (Paulus ve Yang, 2000) uygun bir beyin fırtınası yöntemiyle düşünceler üretmişlerdir. Tüm denekler çiftler halinde ıraksak-ıraksak, ıraksak-yakınsak (karma) ve yakınsak-yakınsak düşünme koşullarına seçkisiz olarak atanmışlardır. Iraksak düşünme koşuluna atanan çiftler, yakınsak ve karma koşullarda bulunan çiftlere göre daha fazla düşünce üretmişlerdir. Ayrıca, etkileşim çiftlerinin nominal çiftlere göre daha fazla düşüncesi bulunmaktadır. Bu bulgular, bilişsel uyarılma ve eşleştirme açıklamaları ışığı altında tartışılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

COŞKUN, H. (2005). The Effect of Divergent Thinking and Group Composition on Idea Generation in Brainwriting. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 55, 39–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/357641

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Basadur, M., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985). Measuring preference for ideation in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 37-49.
  2. Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  3. Borgatta, E. R, & Sales, R. F. (1953). Interaction of individuals in re-constitued groups. Sociometry. 16, 302-320.
  4. Bouchard, T. J., Drauden, G., & Barsaloux, J. (1974). A comparison of individual, subgroup and total group methods of problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 226-227.
  5. Brophy, D. R. (2000). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of convergent and divergent thinkers. Paper presented at the Group Creativity Conference held at The University of Texas at Arlington. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modelling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495-526.
  6. Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68, 1071-1080.
  7. Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 159-163.
  8. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 40-428.
  9. Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider. S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Tests of one underlying mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490-503.
  10. Coşkun, H. (2000). The effects of out-group comparison, social context, intrinsic motivation, and collective identity in brainstorming groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Arlington. Coşkun, H., & Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J. J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4, 307-329.
  11. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,497-509.
  12. 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.
  13. Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitiv