Cognitive stimulation and interference in idea generating groups

By B. Nijstad, Michael Diehl, Wolfgang Stroebe. 2003

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12848c6dfb5cd9c1f4153ff1687ed193642b4e9b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. I. Hoever
2. D. van Knippenberg
3. Jing Zhou
4. Paul B. Paulus
5. V. Glăveanu

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. D. van Knippenberg
2. Jing Zhou
3. Paul B. Paulus
4. V. Glăveanu
5. I. Hoever

In Social Psychology

1. I. Hoever
2. D. van Knippenberg
3. Paul B. Paulus
4. Jing Zhou
5. V. Glăveanu
6. M. Hogg
7. Christina E. Shalley
8. David de Cremer

Citations in the corpus

• How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers (2011, methodology): “In summary, the models of group creativity within the sociocognitive approach are generally unified by the tendency of looking at individuals and at groups as information processors (Nijstad et al., 2003, p. 154).”
• Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming (2005, background): “Research has provided evidence for both social processes (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993; Paulus, Larey, Putman, Leggett, & Roland, 1996) and cognitive processes (Brown et al., 1998; Dugosh et al., 2000; Nijstad et al., 2003) in group brainstorming.”
• Different Strokes for Different Teams: The Contingent Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback on the Creativity of Informationally Homogeneous and Diverse Teams (2017, background): “Research grounded in the brainstorming tradition focuses on generative processing (Nijstad et al., 2003) and work rooted in the team performance literature hails elaboration as the central route to team creativity (van Knippenberg, 2017).”