IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v20y2011i5d10.1007_s10726-011-9233-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Group Attention: An Experiment with Synchronous Brainstorming

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Ferreira

    (University of Lisboa)

  • Pedro Antunes

    (University of Lisboa)

  • Valeria Herskovic

    (Universidad de Chile)

Abstract

In this paper we address the problem of information overload in synchronous group work: the large quantity of information, multiple information sources, and the need to sustain reciprocal interdependence have a negative impact on the capacity to attend to the group. We propose a group attention model characterizing the dynamic coupling between the group members and the mediating technology. Based on that model, we developed a compensation mechanism capable to estimate the most adequate time to raise the users’ attention to the group. We describe how this compensation mechanism was applied to synchronous brainstorming and present results from a laboratory experiment. The obtained results indicate that groups using the compensation mechanism produced 9.6% more ideas when compared to the control groups. A detailed post-hoc analysis of the data obtained in the experiment also indicates that users using the compensation mechanism had 7.5 s of extra uninterrupted time to think about and type an idea, which they began to write 6.4 s sooner, and completed in 4.2 s less time.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Ferreira & Pedro Antunes & Valeria Herskovic, 2011. "Improving Group Attention: An Experiment with Synchronous Brainstorming," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 643-666, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9233-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9233-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9233-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-011-9233-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Terry Connolly & Bayard E. Wynne, 1996. "Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 268-277, June.
    2. Alain Pinsonneault & Henri Barki & R. Brent Gallupe & Norberto Hoppen, 1999. "Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 110-133, June.
    3. William G. Heninger & Alan R. Dennis & Kelly McNamara Hilmer, 2006. "Research Note: Individual Cognition and Dual-Task Interference in Group Support Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 415-424, December.
    4. Terry Connolly & Leonard M. Jessup & Joseph S. Valacich, 1990. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 689-703, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mireille Ducassé & Peggy Cellier, 2014. "Fair and Fast Convergence on Islands of Agreement in Multicriteria Group Decision Making by Logical Navigation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 673-694, July.
    2. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2013. "Putting Quality First in Ideation Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 943-973, September.
    3. Florian Teschner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "Crowd Labor Markets as Platform for Group Decision and Negotiation Research: A Comparison to Laboratory Experiments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 197-214, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William G. Heninger & Alan R. Dennis & Kelly McNamara Hilmer, 2006. "Research Note: Individual Cognition and Dual-Task Interference in Group Support Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 415-424, December.
    2. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2008. "On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 403-420, September.
    3. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2001. "Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-140, March.
    4. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    5. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    6. Kerr, David S. & Murthy, Uday S., 2009. "Beyond brainstorming: The effectiveness of computer-mediated communication for convergence and negotiation tasks," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 245-262.
    7. D Shaw, 2003. "Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 692-705, July.
    8. Russell Haines & Jill Hough & Lan Cao & Douglas Haines, 2014. "Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication: More Contrarian Ideas with Less Influence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 765-786, July.
    9. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    10. Mi, Hwang, 1998. "Did Task Type Matter in the Use of Decision Room GSS? A Critical Review and a Meta-analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Walczuch, R.M. & Hofmaier, K., 2000. "Measuring customer satisfaction on the Internet," Research Memorandum 051, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    12. Christian Hildebrand & Gerald Häubl & Andreas Herrmann & Jan R. Landwehr, 2013. "When Social Media Can Be Bad for You: Community Feedback Stifles Consumer Creativity and Reduces Satisfaction with Self-Designed Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 14-29, March.
    13. Isabella Seeber & Ronald Maier & Barbara Weber, 2013. "Macrocognition in Collaboration: Analyzing Processes of Team Knowledge Building with CoPrA," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 915-942, September.
    14. Jacqueline Ng Lane & Bruce Ankenman & Seyed Iravani, 2018. "Insight into Gender Differences in Higher Education: Evidence from Peer Reviews in an Introductory STEM Course," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 442-456, December.
    15. Sergey R. Yagolkovskiy & Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin, 2015. "The Roles of Novelty and the Organization of Stimulus Material in Divergent Thinking," HSE Working papers WP BRP 41/PSY/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    16. Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten & Frances M. T. Brazier, 2013. "Cognitive Load in Collaboration: Convergence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 975-996, September.
    17. Alge, Bradley J. & Wiethoff, Carolyn & Klein, Howard J., 2003. "When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 26-37, May.
    18. Cahill, Daniel & Ho, Choy Yeing (Chloe) & Yang, Joey W., 2022. "The COVID-19 pandemic: How important is face-to-face interaction for information dissemination?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    19. Walczuch R & Hofmaier K, 2000. "Measuring Customer Satisfaction on the Internet," Research Memorandum 019, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    20. Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei & Richard T. Watson & Danial L. Clapper & Ephraim R. McLean, 1998. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1263-1278, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9233-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.