Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T20:37:25.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Quantity Generate Quality? Testing the Fundamental Principle of Brainstorming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Alfredo Muñoz Adánez
Alfredo Muñoz Adánez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alfredo Muñoz Adanez, Sección Departamental de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: chaviris@psi.ucm.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to test the chief principle of brainstorming, formulated as “quantity generates quality.” The study is included within a broad program whose goal is to detect the strong and weak points of creative techniques. In a sample of 69 groups, containing between 3 and 8 members, the concurrence of two commonly accepted criteria was established as a quality rule: originality and utility or value. The results fully support the quantity-quality relation (r = .893): the more ideas produced to solve a problem, the better quality of the ideas. The importance of this finding, which supports Osborn's theory, is discussed, and the use of brainstorming is recommended to solve the many open problems faced by our society.

Dentro de un amplio programa cuyo objetivo es detectar los puntos fuertes y débiles de las técnicas creativas, en el presente trabajo ponemos a prueba el principio fundamental del brainstorming formulado en los siguientes términos: “la cantidad genera calidad”. Trabajamos con una muestra de 69 grupos, de entre 3 y 8 miembros cada uno, y establecemos como norma de calidad la conjunción de los dos criterios comúnmente aceptados: originalidad y utilidad o valor. Los resultados obtenidos apoyan plenamente la relación entre cantidad y calidad (r = .893): cuanto mayor sea el número de ideas producidas en relación con un problema, mayor será el número de ideas de calidad. Se comenta la importancia de este hallazgo en apoyo de la teoría de Osborn y se recomienda el uso del brainstorming en la resolución de la multitud de problemas abiertos que nuestra sociedad tiene planteados.

Keywords

brainstormingwithholding judgementcreativityproblem solvingbrainstormingaplazamiento del juiciocreatividadresolución de problemas
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , November 2005 , pp. 215 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 76–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Brillhart, J.K., & Jochem, L.M. (1964). Effects of different patterns on outcomes of problem-solving discussions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V., Tumeo., M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495–526,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, P.R. (1954). Techniques of creative thinking. New York: Hawthorn Books.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
DeBono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Gómez Campelo, P., & Muñoz Marrón, E. (2003). El desarrollo de la creatividad en una empresa humanizada. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1, 74–76.Google Scholar
Gordon, W.J.J. (1961). Synectics. The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1962). Factors that aid and hinder creativity. Teachers College Record, 63, 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, H. (1960). Some experiments in creativity. New York: General Electric CompanyGoogle Scholar
Langelar, J.W. (1970). Is brainstorming really effective? Mens en Onderneming, 24, 194–201.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Hamondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Moles, A., & Caude, R. (1970). Créativité et méthodes d'innovation. Paris: Fayard-Mame.Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Adánez, A. (1993). El aplazamiento del juicio como elemento fundamental para el funcionamiento del grupo en el brainstorming. In Loscertales, F. & Marín, M. (Eds.), Dimensiones psicosociales de la educación y de la comunicación, pp. 505–510. Sevilla, Spain: Eudema.Google Scholar
Muñoz Adánez, A. (1994). Métodos creativos para las organizaciones. Madrid: Eudema.Google Scholar
Muñoz Adánez, A. (2003). La naturaleza de la empresa humanizada. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1, 77–78.Google Scholar
Muñoz Adánez, A., Muñoz Marrón, E., & Ruiz Pérez, A. (2000, September). Características de la empresa humanizada. 1st Hispanic-Portuguese Congress of Psychology.Google Scholar
Ochoa, A., & Muñoz Adánez, A. (2003). La motivación intrínseca como variable clave para la humanización de las organizaciones. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1, 70–73.Google Scholar
Osborn, A. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Parnes, S.J. (1963). Education and creativity. Teachers College Record, 64, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnes, S.J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effect of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem-solving by trained und untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, P.B., & Brown, V.R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups. Lessons from research on brainstorming. In Paulus, P.B. & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.), Group creativity. Innovation through collaboration, pp. 110–136. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, P.B., Dugosh, K.L., Dzindolet, M.T., Coskun, H., & Pulman, V.L. (2002). Social and cognitive influences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, H. (Eds.), European review of social psychology, 12, 300–325. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Paulus., P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity. Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, G.M. (1970). The practice of creativity. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rawlinson, J.G. (1981). Creative thinking and brainstorming. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rowatt, W.C., Nesselroade, K.P., Beggan, J.K., & Allison, S.T. (1997). Perceptions of brainstorming in groups: The quality over quantity hypothesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the crowd, cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R.W. (1986). Creativity. Genius and other myths. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Wisskopf-Joelson, E., & Eliseo, T.S. (1961). An experimental study of the effectiveness of brainstorming. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, F. (1969). Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar