Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming.

By Paul B. Paulus, Vincent R. Brown. 2003

192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42f8968316ae05569ed94c4f09479bb13181faf3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Jonali Baruah
2. Andrea B. Hollingshead
3. Mary T. Dzindolet
4. V. Glăveanu
5. Paul B. Paulus
6. Karen A. Jehn

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. V. Glăveanu
2. Mary T. Dzindolet
3. Jonali Baruah
4. Paul B. Paulus
5. Patricia Satterstrom
6. Sujin Jang
7. Jeffrey T. Polzer
8. C. T. Tadmor

In Social Psychology

1. Jonali Baruah
2. Mary T. Dzindolet
3. Paul B. Paulus
4. V. Glăveanu
5. Andrea B. Hollingshead
6. Randall S. Peterson
7. Karen A. Jehn
8. Patricia Satterstrom

Citations in the corpus

• Social influence, creativity and innovation (2008, background): “A detailed discussion of the cognitive perspective can be found in several papers by Paulus and Brown (2003, 2007).”
• The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups (2004, background): “Although there is now support for each of these assumptions (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Paulus & Brown, 2003), much of the focus of the brainstorming literature has been on the production loss that occurs in brainstorming groups relative to similar numbers of individuals…”
• Beyond Individual Creativity (2012, background): “Each newly introduced category is a source of new ideas by itself as well as in combination with alreadyactivated categories, allowing it to spark new ideas in a “chain reaction” that should enhance creativity (Osborn, 1957; Paulus & Brown, 2003; Paulus, Larey, & Dzindolet, 2000).”
• How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers (2011, background): “The underlying assumptions of SIAM have been tested in several studies (see Nijstad et al., 2002, Nijstad and Stroebe, 2006) and are reflected in current attempts to simulate creativity processes with the help of semantic networks (e.g. Paulus and Brown, 2003).”
• Effects of Training on Idea Generation in Groups (2008, methodology): “In this study, we developed a training protocol based on empirical research and related theory on brainstorming (Paulus & Brown, 2003; Paulus et al., 2002).”
• When Do Employees Cyberloaf? An Interactionist Perspective Examining Personality, Justice, and Empowerment (2016, background): “Indeed, taking brief breaks from a task has been identified as a best practice for improving creativity in teams (Paulus & Brown, 2003; Paulus & Nakui, 2005).”