Review Is the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible?
Thủ Thuật Hướng dẫn Is the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible? 2022
Cao Ngọc đang tìm kiếm từ khóa Is the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible? được Cập Nhật vào lúc : 2022-09-15 09:50:05 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Bí quyết Hướng dẫn trong nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết Mới Nhất. Nếu sau khi Read nội dung bài viết vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Admin lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.Groupware
Nội dung chính- a Evaluation ApprehensionApplying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work12.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION: EXPLAINING PRODUCTIVITY LOSS IN BRAINSTORMING TEAMSBrainstorming
1.5.3 Social Issues that could Affect Idea Generation in Group BrainstormingBrainstorming
Social Issues That Could Affect Idea Generation in Group BrainstormingWANTS AND NEEDS ANALYSISPen-and-paper brainstormingGroup Productivity, Social Psychology of2 Social FacilitationIV.C.1 Group Idea Generation and Cognitive PsychologyFocus GroupsIncluding Individual ActivitiesBrainwriting2.1 Overview of BrainwritingBrainstorming Versus BrainwritingBrainwriting, Shoes, and a Swimming PoolHow have we evaluated software pattern application? A systematic mapping study of research design practices4.4.2 Construct validity of included studiesIs the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible multiple choice question?Is the tendency of decision making groups to suppress dissent or disagreement in the interest of harmony?In which of the following activities can a person enhance performance by the mere presence of other people?What is social loafing theory?
Joey F. George, in Encyclopedia of Information Systems, 2003
a Evaluation Apprehension
Evaluation apprehension occurs in a traditional meeting when a participant has a good idea to share but is scared to say anything. This apprehension may be due to many things: the person may not feel comfortable talking in a meeting; the person thinks the idea is good but is not too sure, so he or she is afraid of getting called stupid for stating the idea in public; or the person may not want to say something in front of his or her boss, who is also attending the meeting, especially if the idea is critical of something the boss has done or is known to believe. The end result is the idea is never stated and may therefore be lost forever.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0122272404000848
Applying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work
Robert E. Kraut, in HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks, 2003
12.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION: EXPLAINING PRODUCTIVITY LOSS IN BRAINSTORMING TEAMS
The performance of brainstorming teams is an excellent example of the benefits that groups bring and the way that process losses undercut their effectiveness. We have seen that on brainstorming tasks, groups produce more good ideas than any single thành viên is likely to produce. However, a group of interacting individuals is likely to produce fewer good ideas than a “nominal” group, that is, a group of comparable individuals who work independently and pool their contributions. In this section, we consider how social psychological theories that account for process losses might apply to this phenomenon. We can use our understanding of the reasons for the process loss in this case to evaluate the likely success of the design of commercial brainstorming tools. In Section 12.5, we try to show how, using Karau and Williams’ theory of collective effort, we might redesign other social-technical systems, like list servers or online discussion groups, where content is often undercontributed.
There are three plausible explanations for why interacting groups produce fewer ideas than collections of similar individuals working independently—social pressure, social loafing, and production blocking. Social pressure and social loafing are examples of motivational problems, whereas production blocking is a coordination problem. There is evidence that all three processes frequently occur in groups of many kinds, including brainstorming groups. However, production blocking seems to be the major cause of production loss in interacting brainstorming groups. In this section we consider the evidence that leads to these conclusions and suggest how this attribution of causation has consequences for the design of group systems for brainstorming.
Social pressure. Although there are many forms of social pressure, in the case of brainstorming one might expect that individual contributions may be inhibited because of evaluation apprehension—an individual's fear that others might think badly of him or her for coming up with silly or impractical suggestions. Osborne's (1963) directions for successful brainstorming, which emphasize the nonjudgmental contributions in the early stages of brainstorming, try to guard against this inhibitor.
Social pressure in general and evaluation apprehension in particular reduce participants’ willingness to contribute ideas in a brainstorming session. This is especially true for people who offer minority points of view or controversial ideas (McLeod, Baron, Marti, & Yoon, 1997). Diehl and Stroebe (1987) directly manipulated evaluation apprehension among individuals who were brainstorming by telling some of them that their contributions would be judged by peers or expert judges (high evaluation apprehension) or not (low evaluation apprehension). Individuals who expected judgment produced fewer ideas than those who did not, especially when the discussion topics were controversial.
To reduce evaluation apprehension, some researchers have recommended anonymity in electronic brainstorming systems (Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991), and most commercial brainstorming systems enforce anonymity. As Dennis and Williams note in their recent review, however, evidence about the benefits of anonymity are equivocal best (Dennis & Williams, 2002). Connolly, Jessup, and Valacich (1990) examined the effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on the performance of 24 computer-supported four-person groups. Participants in the nonanonymous groups were introduced to each other and their ideas were identified with their names, while those in the anonymous groups were not introduced and their contributions had no names attached. These researchers also manipulated the evaluative tone of the experiment by having confederates offer critical or supportive comments in response to others’ contributions. They found a strong effect of evaluative tone, with groups containing a critical confederate generating more ideas, but only weak effects of anonymity. Research by Cooper, Gallupe, Pollard, and Cadsby (1998) showed anonymity raised the productivity in electronic brainstorming groups by 10 to 20%. However, similar research by Dennis and Valacich (1993), Jessup, Connolly and Galegher (1990), Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) and Jessup, Connolly and Tansik (1990) found little evidence that anonymous groups produced more or better ideas than ones where members were identified.
Does evaluation apprehension account for the productivity loss in brainstorming groups? To test this, one would need to show that the difference in brainstorming productivity between interacting groups and nominal groups is reduced when one controls for evaluation apprehension. Diehl and Stroebe (1987, experiment 4) conducted this test by comparing brainstorming groups who believed their contributions would be judged by peers or experts (high-evaluation apprehension) with those who thought their contributions would not be judged (low-evaluation apprehension). They found that the high-evaluation apprehension groups produced fewer ideas than the low-evaluation apprehension ones, but only when they believed that the judgments reflected upon the individual contributor rather than the group a whole. However, regardless of the evaluation-apprehension condition, nominal groups produced almost twice as many ideas as interacting groups. This pattern of results suggests that, whereas evaluation apprehension inhibits the generation of ideas, it does not account for differences between nominal and real groups.
Social loafing. Social loafing might account for production loss in interacting brainstorming groups compared to nominal groups, because participants working in a real, interacting group might be less motivated to contribute. To test for the effects of social loafing, researchers typically compare individual-assessment groups of coacting individuals (i.e., groups in which individuals work in the presence of others, but believe that their outputs will not be pooled) with collective-assessment groups (i.e., groups in which individuals work in each others’ presence and believe that their outputs will be combined). Social loafing does reduce brainstorming effort, as it does many other outcomes. Research comparing individual- and collective-assessment groups shows that social loafing reduces contribution in brainstorming tasks. For example, Diehl and Stroebe (1987, experiment 1) conducted a brainstorming experiment with two independent variables—type of session (individual versus real interacting four-person group) and type of assessment (individual versus collective). In the individual-assessment condition participants were led to believe that their individual contributions would be tallied, while in the collective-assessment condition they were led to believe that the contributions would be pooled among all people in an experimental condition before being tallied. Collective assessment reduced contributions. Subjects in the collective-assessment condition reduced their contributions by 24%, showing the effects of social loafing. However, the effects of type of assessment were much weaker than the effects of being in a four-person group or of working individually. Subjects in the group sessions reduced their contribution by 63% compared to those in the individual sessions (i.e., what others have called nominal groups). Moreover, the productivity loss from being in an interacting group was approximately the same whether subjects thought their contributions would be evaluated individually or collectively. These results suggest that while social loafing can decrease productivity for brainstorming tasks, it cannot account for differences between nominal and interacting groups.
Production blocking. Conventional, face-to-face brainstorming groups experience some degree of production blocking, because multiple members of the group cannot talk simultaneously without drowning each other out or interrupting each other. Therefore, to determine whether production blocking accounts for productivity losses in brainstorming groups, researchers have added production blocking to conditions under which blocking would not typically occur. For example, Diehl and Stroebe (1987, experiment 5) compared five experimental conditions. To replicate traditional research, they compared interacting groups and nominal groups (isolated individuals brainstorming independently). In addition, they included three other conditions, in which subjects believed they were in groups whose members were distributed in different rooms. Red lights,which glowed when other members of their distributed groups were talking, regulated when they could contribute, to different degrees. In one condition (blocking, communication), they heard the other people by headphones and were told to refrain from contributing when the red light was on. In the blocking, no-communication condition, they were told to refrain from contributing when the red light was on, and they could not hear the other parties. In the no-blocking, no-communication condition, the red lights glowed when others were talking, but subjects were told that they could contribute “whenever they wanted and that they need not pay any attention to the lights.” Results were consistent with the production-blocking explanation, showing that both blocking manipulations reduced brainstorming contribution to 50% of the level of the interacting groups, while seeing the light without the blocking instruction had no effects on brainstorming. The details of this experiment are shown in Figure 12.7.
FIGURE 12.7. Brainstorming contributions (from Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, experiment 5).
Gallupe, Cooper, Grisé, and Bastianutti (1994, experiment 3) used a similar approach. They compared two electronic brainstorming systems, in which people typed their contribution. In the electronic, no-blocking condition, participants could type in parallel and enter ideas simultaneously. In the blocking condition, subjects could enter material only when a previous contributor had verbally indicated that he or she had finished entering an idea. They compared these two electronic conditions with a conventional interacting, face-to-face brainstorming group whose members spoke their contributions (face-to-face), and a face-to-face group whose members had to wait until others were finished speaking before making a contribution (face-to-face, first in). Subjects in the electronic, no-blocking condition produced about a third more nonredundant ideas than subjects in either of the other conditions, which did not differ from each other.
Together, the results of this research show that evaluation apprehension, social loafing, and production blocking can all reduce production in brainstorming groups. However, production blocking seems to be the primary factor that explains why nominal groups (individuals whose contributions are pooled) typically produce more ideas than interacting groups. Electronic groups whose members interact in parallel can perform as well as or better than nominal groups (Dennis & Williams, in press). Introducing blocking into the electronic group eliminates the advantages of working independently.
12.4.1 Application to System DesignKnowing whether social pressure, social loafing, or production blocking is the primary cause of production loss in group brainstorming has implications for designing effective brainstorming tools. If social pressure and evaluation apprehension are the major culprits, one design solution is to enforce anonymity in contributions. Disguising the identity of contributors should reduce their fears that others will think poorly of them for outlandish contributions and thereby reduce inhibition. As Nunamaker and his colleagues note (Nunamaker et al., 1991), “anonymity can affect EMS [electronic meeting support] use by reducing or eliminating evaluation apprehensions and conformance pressures, as well as social cues. The reduction of evaluation apprehension and conformance pressure may encourage a more open, honest and không lấy phí-wheeling discussion of key issues” (p. 55). Based on this logic, most commercial-meeting support systems, including those with electronic brainstorming features, enforce anonymity (e.g., www.groupsystems.com).
In contrast, if social loafing is a major cause, then enforcing anonymity would be counterproductive. Both theory and Karau and Williams's (1993) empirical literature review suggest that making an individual's contributions visible decreases social loafing and encourages people to contribute. One type of positive social pressure in a group is to set a production standard. Knowing that others can observe and evaluate one's output discourages group members from slacking off, the same time that it discourages them from contributing outlandish or controversial ideas. Perhaps these conflicting outcomes are the reasons why anonymity does not seem to have consistent effects on the quality and quantity of performance in brainstorming sessions.
Finally, if production blocking is the major source of the problem, then manipulating anonymity is irrelevant. Production blocking occurs when simultaneous contributions overtax some scarce resource, such as time or working memory. Production blocking occurs because in face-to-face settings two people can't talk the same time or because the act of listening to others’ contributions prevents an individual from simultaneously generating new ideas. If production blocking is the major cause, then the solution is to devise procedures or technologies that allow simultaneous input. Virtually every research-oriented and commercial group-decision support system has a module for electronic brainstorming and has procedures for simultaneous input. For example, the brainstorming module from www.groupsystems.com circulates lists of suggestions among the participants. Each participant initiates a list by making a contribution. When participants submit a contribution, they are randomly given one of the circulating lists, to which they can append another new idea or a comment on a previous one. In this arrangement, multiple participants can contribute simultaneously. They also have an opportunity to see the contributions of others for the potential stimulation this might provide.
Although we have used the phenomenon of production losses in brainstorming as a vehicle to understand the application of various social psychological theories, these theories are not limited to this domain. In the next section we discuss how a theory of social loafing might be used to increase contribution rates in various online communication forums.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781558608085500125
Brainstorming
Chauncey Wilson, in Brainstorming and Beyond, 2013
1.5.3 Social Issues that could Affect Idea Generation in Group Brainstorming
Brainstorming involves a number of social issues that can impair creativity (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). These social issues include:
•Fear of evaluation by other members of the group. Evaluation apprehension, the fear or being evaluated or tested, is a serious issue for group brainstorming (Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Rosenberg, 1969). Participants may not want to put forth wild ideas if they are afraid of losing credibility, having their idea rejected, or being humiliated. Facilitators can reduce evaluation apprehension by:
•Not inviting someone that the group fears. Avoid inviting managers who are tyrannical or several levels above most of the other participants. This is not the time to invite the CEO to drop by.
•Stressing that the quantity of ideas is the sole criterion for brainstorming success.
•Reminding participants that all ideas are welcome.
•Pointing out that the participants will not be judged on the quality of ideas. The worst thing that any facilitator or manager can do to stifle brainstorming would be to hint (or publically state) that the results of brainstorming will be used as input to employees’ performance reviews.
•Competition for speaking time. Facilitators should encourage participants to:
•Respond crisply.
•Not belabor an idea once it is understood.
•Avoid criticism.
•Watch for cues that someone is struggling to get his or her ideas out. While everyone should have a chance to speak, forcing people to speak or “going around the table” for input from everyone is generally not recommended. Putting people on the spot can be terrifying.
•Listening to others. A common (and often ignored) rule in brainstorming is that only one person speaks a time. Some brainstorming researchers and practitioners even recommend that participants raise their hands if they have an idea to avoid interrupting a person who is currently expressing an idea. However, requiring participants to raise their hands may seem too juvenile for many professional offices.
•No side conversations. A primary responsibility of the facilitator is to suppress side conversations because they will distract the group and block the production of new ideas.
•Avoid “filler conversations”. Filler conversations occur when a participant states an idea and then goes on to explain or elaborate excessively on the idea or “tells a war story.” Filler wastes time that could be used to generate new ideas and can block the production of ideas by others who have to listen. Group brainstorming is more effective when filler material is kept to a minimum (Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, & Yang, 2000).
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124071575000014
Brainstorming
Chauncey Wilson, in User Experience Re-Mastered, 2010
Social Issues That Could Affect Idea Generation in Group Brainstorming
Brainstorming involves a number of social issues that can impair creativity (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). These social issues include the following:
■Fear of evaluation by other members of the group: Evaluation apprehension, the fear or being evaluated or tested, is a serious issue for group brainstorming (Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Rosenberg, 1969). Participants may not want to put forth wild ideas if they are afraid of losing credibility, having their idea rejected, or being humiliated. Facilitators can reduce evaluation apprehension by:
■Not inviting someone that the group fears. Avoid inviting managers who are tyrannical.
■Stressing that the quantity of ideas is the sole criterion for brainstorming success
■Reminding participants that all ideas are welcome
■Pointing out that the participants will not be judged on the quality of ideas. The worst thing that any facilitator or manager could do to stifle brainstorming would be to hint (or publicly state) that the results of brainstorming will be used as input to employees' performance reviews.
■Competition for speaking time: Facilitators should encourage participants to:
■Respond crisply.
■Not belabor an idea once it is understood.
■Avoid criticism.
■Watch for cues that someone is struggling to get his/her ideas out. While everyone should have a chance to speak, forcing people to speak or “going around the table” for input from everyone is, generally, not recommended.
■Avoid “war stories” that steal time away from idea generation. War stories are “filler conversations” and all they do is reduce the time others have to generate ideas. Facilitators should prevent participants from telling their favorite war stories. It is hard to attend to a war story and also be creative.
■Motivating participants: Facilitators can influence participants' motivation by describing the importance of the task and providing feedback about past brainstorming sessions (“In the last sessions, we generated 103 ideas in just 30 minutes”).
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123751140000074
WANTS AND NEEDS ANALYSIS
Catherine Courage, Kathy Baxter, in Understanding Your Users, 2005
Pen-and-paper brainstorming
There are a few ways, other than effective moderation, to address the issues that are a natural part of brainstorming. These issues include social loafing(i.e., the tendency for individuals to reduce the effort they make toward some task when working together with others) and evaluation apprehension(i.e., the fear of being evaluated by others). To reduce social loafing, participants can be given several minutes the beginning of the session to silently write down as many ideas as possible. This can be followed by a round-robin in which each user must read one of the ideas from his/her list. Since each user is accountable for providing a new idea during his/her turn, the user cannot sit back and avoid participating. Users may generate new ideas during the sharing of ideas written, and therefore benefit from the group synergy (i.e., an idea from one participant positively influences another participant, resulting in an additional idea that would not have been generated without the initial idea). You must be sure to follow up with users and understand why they are suggesting the ideas, otherwise, you may never know.
Some studies have shown that people generate more ideas when working separately and then pooling their ideas rather than working as a group (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas 1991; Paulus, Larey, & Ortega 1995). One study found that when college psychology students were allowed to work alone and/or were not held accountable for the number of ideas generated, they actually generated more ideas than those working face to face (Kass, Inzana, & Willis 1995). This method would be particularly effective for someone who did not feel comfortable with his or her moderation skills. It takes a skilled moderator to counteract social loafing and evaluation apprehension (refer to Chapter 6, During Your User Requirements Activity, “Moderating Your Activity” section, page 220). This modification helps to giảm giá with the issue for you. The main disadvantages of this modification is that it can be more time-consuming.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781558609358500397
Group Productivity, Social Psychology of
K.D. Williams, S.J. Karau, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001
2 Social Facilitation
Though Triplett's findings were replicated early and often, inconsistencies began to emerge across studies throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Specifically, the presence of others, either as an audience or as coactors (i.e., individuals who work on the same task in each other's presence but who do not combine their outputs into a group product), did not always enhance performance and sometimes reduced performance. Zajonc (1965) devised an elegant solution to this discrepancy. He suggested that the presence of other people increases generalized drive, thereby facilitating dominant responses. On simple or well-learned tasks, dominant responses are likely correct and the presence of others should enhance performance. On complex or unfamiliar tasks, dominant responses are likely to be in error and the presence of others should reduce performance.
Later research has largely supported Zajonc's view (for a review, see Bond and Titus 1983). Indeed, most researchers now define social facilitation as the tendency for the presence of others to facilitate performance on simple or well-learned tasks but to impair performance on complex or unfamiliar tasks. However, there is an active controversy among researchers and theorists as to why and when the presence of others facilitates dominant responses. The mere presence perspective of Zajonc (1965) and others focuses on arousal and assumes that the presence of other people introduces an element of uncertainty to a situation that leads people to become more aroused and alert, regardless of whether or not the other people present have any interest in what the individual is doing. Cottrell's (1972) evaluation apprehension theory states that mere presence is not sufficient to produce arousal, but rather that it is the ability of other people to create apprehension about being evaluated that leads to social facilitation. If others are present but are paying no attention to the individual and have no regard for how well the individual performs, performance should not be affected. Finally, distraction-conflict theory (Baron 1986) focuses on attention rather than arousal as the primary mediator of social facilitation. Research has documented repeatedly that the presence of others can be distracting and can divide an individual's attention between working on the task hand and monitoring the behavior and reactions of the audience or coactors. Distraction-conflict theory suggests that individuals try to resolve this cognitive and attentional conflict by increasing their effort the task to overcome the effects of distraction, thereby enhancing performance on simple tasks and reducing it on complex tasks.
Research has found some support for all of these theories. It appears as though mere presence, evaluation apprehension, and distraction are all capable of creating and contributing to social facilitation effects. Arousal levels have been documented to increase in the mere presence of others, and support has been found for social facilitation even when the others present are very unlikely to create any apprehension about evaluation. Arousal does become more pronounced, however, when observers are clearly evaluating the individual. Similarly, studies have shown that social facilitation effects can emerge from situations in which the presence of others creates distraction. Thus, arousal, evaluation apprehension, and distraction can all potentially contribute to social facilitation effects, both alone and in combination with one another (for a detailed discussion of these factors, see Geen 1991).
Research has also documented social facilitation effects across a wide array of settings, tasks, and subject populations. The effect also appears to hold for a wide variety of animals in addition to humans, including armadillos, chickens, monkeys, and rats. In one rather unusual study, the ability of cockroaches to run either a simple runway or a maze was examined either alone, in coacting pairs, or in the presence of other cockroaches who observed from behind a plastic barrier (Zajonc et al. 1969). When in the presence of coactors or observers, cockroaches ran the simple runway more rapidly but took longer to navigate the maze, replicating prior social facilitation research on humans and other animals. Social facilitation has also been widely documented in field settings. As just two examples, social facilitation effects have been documented for gymnastics performance and billiards playing in public settings.
However, although social facilitation effects are well-established, they appear to be somewhat small in magnitude in comparison with other prominent social psychological phenomena and the impact of facilitation on performance sometimes varies across performance measures. Based on their meta-analysis of 241 studies, Bond and Titus (1983) concluded that, on simple tasks, the presence of others increased the rate of productivity but did not improve performance quality. They also concluded that, on complex tasks, the presence of others reduced both the quantity and quality of performance. Finally, they noted that the productivity gains associated with simple tasks were weaker in magnitude than the productivity losses associated with complex tasks performed in the presence of others.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767017952
Psychology
Sean B. Eom, in Encyclopedia of Information Systems, 2003
IV.C.1 Group Idea Generation and Cognitive Psychology
Group idea generation is an important part of GSS activities. Osborn argued that most human mental capacities, such as absorption, retention, and reasoning, can be performed by computers, with the exception of the creative ability to generate ideas, and that nearly all humans have some imaginative talent. Os-born identified two broad classes of imagination—controllable and uncontrollable by the will of the individual. GSS researchers have focused on extending his idea concerning how human imagination that can be driven the will of the individual can be further developed by GSS. Brainstorming is one of the most widely known approaches to idea generation. Osborn improved a traditional, unstructured process of group idea generation technique and provided a set of systematic rules for brainstorming groups to overcome several social psychological factors that usually inhibit the generation of ideas.
Numerous research has shown that nominal groups of noninteracting individuals have outperformed verbally brainstorming groups. Many psychologists investigated the most likely causes of productivity losses of brainstorming groups (production blocking, không lấy phí riding, evaluation apprehension, etc.). A series of experiments by psychologists Diehl and Stroebe concluded that “individuals brainstorming alone, then pooling afterwards produces more ideas of a quality least as high as do the same number of people brainstorming in a group” due to several possible reasons, such as evaluation apprehension, không lấy phí riding, and production blocking. A significant finding of Diehl and Stroebe's experiments was their recognition of the magnitude of the impacts that production blocking has on the productivity loss of brainstorming groups. By manipulating blocking directly, Diehl and Stroebe were able to determine that production blocking accounted for most of the productivity loss of real brainstorming groups. Therefore, their findings suggest that it might be more effective to ask group members first to develop their ideas in individual sessions; then, these ideas could be discussed and evaluated in a group session.
Several studies conducted in the early 1990s showed that electronically brainstorming groups produced superior results to verbally brainstorming groups and nonelectronic nominal groups in terms of number of unique ideas generated. Group support systems researchers tried to answer the question of why electronically brainstorming groups generated a higher number of unique ideas, adopting the numerous research results of cognitive scientists. Nagasundaram and Dennis argued that “a large part of idea-generation behavior in electronic brainstorming (EBS) can be explained by viewing EBS as an individual, cognitive (rather than social) phenomenon from the human information processing system perspective.”
Janis and Mann analyzed psychological processes involved in conflict, choices, commitment, and consequential outcomes and provided a descriptive conflict theory. Their theory is concerned with “when, how, and why psychological stress generated by decisional conflict imposes on the rationality of a person's decisions” and how people actually cope with the stresses of decisional conflicts. Based on the theoretical assumptions derived from extensive research on the psychology of stress, Janis and Mann (1977) provided a general theoretical framework for integrating diverse findings from psychological/behavioral science research and reviewed the main body toàn thân of psychological/behavioral science research concerning the determinants of decisional conflicts.
An important goal in the study of group DSS (GDSS) is to minimize the dysfunctions of the group interaction process, such as evaluation apprehension, cognitive inertia, domination by a few individuals, etc. In designing GDSS to minimize the dysfunctions, GDSS researchers have sought to build on/extend the research results of group dynamics, which seeks the answer to the following question: How is behavior influenced by others in a group? In the area of group dynamics, Shaw and McGrath provided an integrative conceptual framework for synthesizing the voluminous body toàn thân of group research and presented approaches to the study of groups. They examined factors that facilitate/inhibit group behavior and problem solving as an interrelated process of social interaction. The factors include the physical environment of groups, personal characteristics of group members, group composition, group structure, leadership, group tasks and goals, etc. According to McGrath, all groups can be classified as: vehicles for delivering social influence, structures for patterning social interaction, or task performances systems. He focused on the nature, the causes, and the consequences of “group interaction processes,” defined as “dynamic interplay of individual and collective behavior of group members.”
Siegel and others investigated the behavioral and social implications of computer-mediated communications and sought to answer the question: Do computer-mediated communications change group decision making? The results of their experiments suggest that simultaneous computer-mediated communication significantly affected efficiency, thành viên participation, interpersonal behavior, and group choice, when compared to the face-to-face meeting. Using computerized communication, it took more time for group consensus, and fewer remarks were exchanged. However, more decision proposals were introduced. Communication via the computer showed more equal participation of group members and more uninhibited communication; in addition, decisions deviated further from initial individual opinions. These results suggest computer-mediated communication is somewhat inefficient compared to face-to-face communication. Distraction and frustration in having to read and type messages simultaneously could provoke more uninhibited behavior.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0122272404001428
Focus Groups
Kathy Baxter, ... Peter McNally, in Understanding your Users (Second Edition), 2015
Including Individual Activities
While the purpose of a focus group is to understand perspectives from a group, this does not preclude also collecting data from individuals. For example, you could ask participants to rank options individually or ask participants to vote for their preference. Rather than asking everyone to vote by raising their hand (and risk groupthink or evaluation apprehension), you can ask people to vote on paper. You can have the questions preprinted and distribute each question the time you would like to vote. This prevents users from filling out all the questions in advance rather than paying attention to the group discussion. You may also choose to give a survey prior to or following a focus group in order to address questions that you do not have time to address in the focus group itself.
You may also ask closed-ended questions. These are questions that provide a limited set of responses for participants to choose from (e.g., yes/no; agree/disagree; option a, b, or c), rank a series of options, or vote for a preferred choice. You can also poll the participants (i.e., determine how many people agree with a statement). The benefit of collecting this type of data during a focus group rather than on a survey (where it is typically collected) is that you can ask individuals to discuss why they made the selection(s) they did. In fact, it is best to think about ratings and polls as providing an opportunity to have a discussion rather than as a quantitative measure of a preference or attitude. Live polling allows you to ask closed-ended questions and gather real-time results using text messaging, a smart phone app, or other handheld input device (e.g., “clicker”). Those results can then be displayed immediately to the group without the moderator having to tally results.
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128002322000122
Brainwriting
Chauncey Wilson, in Brainstorming and Beyond, 2013
2.1 Overview of Brainwriting
Brainwriting (sometimes called “individual brainstorming”) is a method for rapidly generating ideas by asking participants to write their ideas on paper (or online) and exchanging written ideas rather than shouting those ideas out as happens during traditional brainstorming (Brahm & Kleiner, 1996). Table 2.1 is a scorecard that highlights the relative investment needed to conduct a brainwriting session and when brainwriting is most useful.
Table 2.1. Method Scorecard for Brainwriting
Overall Effort Required Time for Planning and Conducting Skill and Experience Supplies and Equipment Time for Data Analysis Most Useful During These Project Phases: Problem Definition Requirements Conceptual Design Detailed Design Implementation
While brainwriting is less well known than traditional group brainstorming (Osborn, 1963), Paulus and Brown (2003) provided evidence that brainwriting often produces more ideas than group brainstorming. Because each person is writing down ideas the same time, the process involves parallel activity as compared to brainstorming where only one idea can be “shouted out” a time. Spreng (2007) noted that when you have four people in a 20-minutes brainstorming session, you are brainstorming for 20 minutes, but if you ask four people to spend 20 minutes each writing down answers (as fast as they can) to a brainwriting question, you really have something more like an 80-minutes brainstorming session.
Brainstorming Versus Brainwriting
Brainwriting is not yet a common technique in user-centerd design (UCD) for generating ideas, but it has some advantages over group brainstorming where people shout out their ideas in a group. One advantage is that the blocking effects found in face-to-face brainstorming (e.g., evaluation apprehension and competition for speaking time) are reduced when people write their ideas privately rather than shouting them out.
Brainwriting is easier than group brainstorming because it does not require an experienced facilitator—nearly anyone can conduct a brainwriting session with confidence that the results will be useful.
There are two general types of brainwriting: individual (sometimes called “nominal”) and interactive. During individual brainwriting participants are given a question or topic and simply list their ideas privately for a specified period of time without discussion. You could consider không lấy phí listing (see Chapter 1 on Brainstorming) where you ask a group to list as many ideas as possible to a question, as one type of individual brainwriting. All the ideas are collected, again without discussion, and clear duplicates are eliminated.
For interactive (group) brainwriting, participants are asked to do the following:
1.Write ideas on a page for a specified time (usually several minutes).
2.Pass their pages with ideas to the next person in the group on a signal from the brainwriting facilitator.
3.Silently read the ideas from the preceding person and add new ideas to the list without speaking to anyone else.
4.Pass the pages with ideas from the first two people to another person.
5.Repeat the process several more times and until the allotted time has run out.
6.Hand in the ideas to the brainwriting facilitator.
At the end of the interactive brainwriting session, all the ideas can be collected for future review or posted for review immediately. Participants can then “vote” on the best ideas or use another approach to determine what ideas to consider further.
This chapter will focus primarily on interactive brainwriting which involves a small group of participants, and unlike individual brainwriting, provides some synergy of ideas because each person reads the ideas of others before listing new ideas.
Brainwriting, Shoes, and a Swimming Pool
If you are short on time and want to get ideas for a large group, you can use individual or interactive brainwriting almost anywhere. While researching examples of brainwriting, this author ran across a story about a person who wanted to get ideas about a new customer relationship manager (CRM) tool an international meeting, but had only a short time to do it and too many people (about 20) to do traditional group brainstorming. So he gave colleagues the question about CRMs and a template for listing ideas and sent them away for 15 minutes to generate ideas. People wrote up their ideas outside, then got together in an empty swimming pool to discuss and categorize the ideas. It was windy so they used their shoes to keep the various piles of related brainwriting ideas from flying away.
By the end of the session in the swimming pool, the group had dozens of related ideas grouped into about 40 piles.
Interactive brainwriting sessions are generally short, lasting from 10 to 20 minutes. However, the brainwriting method can be used online and last for days or weeks as colleagues generate new ideas that add to or enhance existing items (Dennis & Williams, 2003).
Read full chapter
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124071575000026
How have we evaluated software pattern application? A systematic mapping study of research design practices
Maria Riaz, ... Laurie Williams, in Information and Software Technology, 2015
4.4.2 Construct validity of included studies
Construct validity is the degree to which the experiment is measuring what it is purported to measure [34]. The use of ambiguous definitions that lead to multiple, even conflicting, interpretations of the experimental construct is a threat to construct validity.
Evaluation apprehension, a human tendency to try to look better or fear of being evaluated, is the most commonly identified threat to construct validity as reported in four studies. Participants may experience apprehensions during the experiment, such as fear of poor performance. These apprehensions can hinder participants’ potential to perform to the best of their abilities whether they are based on actual or perceived liabilities associated with participation in the experiment. Measuring performance of participants in the presence of such unintended apprehensions can lead to an inaccurate assessment of participants’ abilities, which can threaten construct validity. Blinding can minimize biases and apprehensions on part of the experimenter and participants [46], leading to increased validity of the findings. In study S08, double blinding was used in which participants were not informed about the goal of the study and a level of indirection was used so that results could not be traced back to any specific participant.
An important consideration is to choose valid measures for each construct, as considered in four studies. Quantitative constructs, such as code size, are easier to measure, whereas qualitative constructs, such as quality and efficiency, are prone to variable interpretations and require the investigator to provide an explicit account of the assumptions that link the measures to the construct. In qualitative case study research, strategies to mitigate threats to construct validity include using multiple sources of evidence, establishing chains of evidence and using key informants to review the study findings [37].
Hypothesis guessing is another commonly considered threat to construct validity (3 studies). If participants can anticipate the expected results, their performance can be biased in favor or against the hypothesis, threatening construct validity.
Read full article
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584915000774
Is the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible multiple choice question?
What is social loafing? -tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable. -social facilitation usually occurs when people work toward individual goals and when their efforts can be individually evaluated.Is the tendency of decision making groups to suppress dissent or disagreement in the interest of harmony?
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. The term was first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis.In which of the following activities can a person enhance performance by the mere presence of other people?
In which of the following activities can a person enhance performance by the mere presence of other people? Riding a bicycle. Shaw (1981) argued that the one thing that all groups have in common is that the members: They interact.What is social loafing theory?
Social loafing is the perceived psychological phenomenon that team members do less in a group setting. The social loafing effect states that individuals don't pull their own weight when they're judged as part of a group. Tải thêm tài liệu liên quan đến nội dung bài viết Is the tendency for people to put forth less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually responsible?
Post a Comment