Effects of Problem Scope and Creativity Instructions on Idea Generation and Selection
Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, Wolfgang Stroebe
Abstract
Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, Wolfgang Stroebe
Abstract
The basic assumption of brainstorming is that increased quantity of ideas results in increased generation as well as selection of creative ideas. Although previous research suggests that idea quantity correlates strongly with the number of good ideas generated, quantity has been found to be unrelated to the quality of selected ideas. This article reports the results of a brainstorming experiment aimed at increasing the average creativity of ideas and creative idea selection (rather than idea quantity). Problem scope (narrow vs. broad) and creativity instructions (emphasis on creativity vs. personal relevance) were manipulated. Results show that both narrow (vs. broad) problems and creativity (vs. relevance) instructions led to the generation of ideas that were more creative. However, only under creativity instructions did participants select more creative ideas.
OpenAlex reports 134 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The basic assumption of brainstorming is that increased quantity of ideas results in increased generation as well as selection of creative ideas. Although previous research suggests that idea quantity correlates strongly with the number of good ideas generated, quantity has been found to be unrelated to the quality of selected ideas. This article reports the results of a brainstorming experiment aimed at increasing the average creativity of ideas and creative idea selection (rather than idea quantity). Problem scope (narrow vs. broad) and creativity instructions (emphasis on creativity vs. personal relevance) were manipulated. Results show that both narrow (vs. broad) problems and creativity (vs. relevance) instructions led to the generation of ideas that were more creative. However, only under creativity instructions did participants select more creative ideas.
Key concepts: Creativity, Brainstorming, Scope (computer science), Relevance (law), Selection (genetic algorithm), Psychology, Creativity technique, Quality (philosophy)