skip to main content
10.1145/1142405.1142427acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

The effect of group composition on divergent thinking in an interaction design activity

Published:26 June 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nearly 50 years of empirical research has suggested that social influences have an inhibiting effect on creativity in collaborating groups such as design teams. This suggests that design teams may not be as creative as they could be, resulting in a negative impact on the design process. In this paper we investigate the effect of group composition on creativity in terms of divergent thinking, in order to determine how best to support the creative process in design and the development of design environments. We present some novel results about 'group think', showing that real groups foster refinement of ideas while nominal groups foster duplication of ideas.

References

  1. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), 1988Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T.M. The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Benami, O., Yan, J., Creative Stimulation in Conceptual Design. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, (2002), 1--13Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K Contextual Design. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1998Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Boden, M. The Dimensions of Creativity. MIT Press Cambridge, London, 1994Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Bonnardel, N. Creativity in design activities: The role of analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Proc. Creativity and Cognition, (1999), 158--165 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bruseberg, A., McDonagh-Philp, D. New Product Development by Eliciting User Experience and Aspirations. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, (2001), 435--452 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. de Bono, E. The Use of Laterial Thinking. Jonathon Cape, London, 1967Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Demhis, A.R., Valacich, J. S. Computer Brainstorms: More Heads Are Better Than One. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 4 (1993), 531--536Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Diehl, M., Stroebe, W. Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, (1987), 497--509Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Fischer, G. Domain-Oriented Design Environments: Supporting Individual and Social Creativity. Computational Models of Creative Design IV (1999), 83--111Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gennari, J.H., Reddy, M., Participatory Design and an Eligibility Screen Tool. Proc. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, (2000), 290--294Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gough, H.G. A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 8 (1979), 1398--1405Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Grudin, J. Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers Communications of the ACM, (1994), 92--105 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Guildford, J.P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, (1950), 444--454Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Janis, I.L. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, 1982Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, P., Johnson, H., Wilson, S,. Rapid Prototyping of User Interfaces Driven by Task Models. in Carroll, J. ed. Scenario-Based Design, John Wiley (1995) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kiesler, S., Barley, S. R., Kraut, R. E., Dutton, W. H., Resnick, P., Yates, J., Does CSCW Need Organization Theory? Proc. CSCW, (2004), ACM Press, 122--124 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Koestler, A. The act of creation. Dell, New York, 1964Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamm, H., Trommsdorff, G. Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming). European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, (1973), 361--387Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Lawson, B. How Designers Think. Eastview Editions, USA, 1980Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., Salas, E. Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 1 (1991), 3--23Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. O'Neill, E. User-developer cooperation in software development: building common ground and usable systems. Springer Verlag, London, 2000 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. O'Neill, E., Johnson, P., Johnson, H. Representation and user-developer interaction in cooperative analysis and design. Human Computer Interaction, 14, 1--2 (1999), 43--91 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. O'Neill, E., Woodgate, D., Kostakos, V., Easing the wait in the Emergency Room: building a theory of public information systems. Proc. DIS, (2004), ACM Press, 17--25 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Osborn, A.F. Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribeners and Sons, New York, 1957Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Paulus, P.B. Groups, Teams and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups. Applied Psychology, 49, (2000), 237--262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Paulus, P.B., Yang, H. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organisations. Journal of Organisational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes, 82, 1 (2000), 76--87Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Prante, T., Magerkurth, C. and Streitz, N., Developing CSCW Tools for Idea Finding - Empirical Results and Implications for Design. Proc. CSCW, (2002), 106--115 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Rotter, G.S., Portugal, S. M. Group and Individual Effects in Problem Solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 4 (1969), 338--341Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Streitz, N., Gei?ler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfolde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., & Steinmetz, R., I-LAND: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation. Proc. CHI, (1999), 120--127 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Taylor, D.W., Berry, P. C., Block C. H. Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 1 (1958), 23--47Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Terry, D.J., Hoog, M. A. Attributes, behaviour and social context the roles of norms and group membership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Torrance, E.P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: norms-technical manual. Presonnel Press, Princeton, N.J., 1966Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Warr, A., O'Neill, E., Getting Creative with Participatory Design. Proc. Participatory Design Conference, (2004), 57-60 Warr, A., O'Neill, E., The Effect of Operational Mechanisms on Creativity. Proc. Interact, (2005), ACM Press, 629--642Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Warr, A., O'Neill, E., The Effect of Operational Mechanisms on Creativity. Proc. Interact, (2005), ACM Press, 629--642 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Warr, A., O'Neill, E., Understanding Design as a Social Creative Process. Proc. Creativity and Cognition, (2005), ACM Press, 118--127 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Warr, A., O'Neill, E., Public Social Private Design (PSPD). Extended Abstract of CHI, (2006), ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Warr, A., O'Neill, E., Tools for Creativity: Sketching with the EDC and PSPD. "Sketching" Nurturing Creativity: Commonalities in Art, Design, Engineering and Research , a workshop at CHI, (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The effect of group composition on divergent thinking in an interaction design activity

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        DIS '06: Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems
        June 2006
        384 pages
        ISBN:1595933670
        DOI:10.1145/1142405

        Copyright © 2006 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 June 2006

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

        Upcoming Conference

        DIS '24
        Designing Interactive Systems Conference
        July 1 - 5, 2024
        IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader