Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi

Hamit COŞKUN (Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Bolu, Türkiye)
Türk Psikoloji Dergisi
30 10
Yıl: 2005 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 55 Sayfa Aralığı: 39 - 42 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi

Öz:
Bu araştırmanın amacı, düşünce üretim performansı üzerinde ıraksak ve yakınsak düşünme görevlerinin etkisini değerlendirmektir. Denekler, mümkün olduğunca çok sayıda verilen sözcük çiftlerinin benzerlikleri (yakınsak görev) veya farklılıklarıyla (ıraksak görev) ilgili sözcükleri 10 dakika içinde yaratmaya yönlendirildikten sonra, çiftler halinde nominal (paylaşmama) ve etkileşim (paylaşma) koşullarında beyin yazımı modeline (Paulus ve Yang, 2000) uygun bir beyin fırtınası yöntemiyle düşünceler üretmişlerdir. Tüm denekler çiftler halinde ıraksak-ıraksak, ıraksak-yakınsak (karma) ve yakınsak-yakınsak düşünme koşullarına seçkisiz olarak atanmışlardır. Iraksak düşünme koşuluna atanan çiftler, yakınsak ve karma koşullarda bulunan çiftlere göre daha fazla düşünce üretmişlerdir. Ayrıca, etkileşim çiftlerinin nominal çiftlere göre daha fazla düşüncesi bulunmaktadır. Bu bulgular, bilişsel uyarılma ve eşleştirme açıklamaları ışığı altında tartışılmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: düşünce egzersizi eşleştirme bilişsel uyarılma grup çalışması beyin fırtınası iraksak düşünce düşünce üretimi

Konular: Psikoloji

The Effect of Divergent Thinking and Group Composition on Idea Generation in Brainwriting

Öz:
The aim of the current study was to assess the influence of convergent and divergent tasks on the idea generation performance. The participants were randomly instructed to generate as many words as they could come up with on the either similarities (convergent task) or differences (divergent task) for the given dual words within the 10 minutes and then brainstormed as dyads in either nominal (nonsharing) and interactive (sharing) condition in a brainwriting paradigm (Paulus & Yang, 2000). All participants as dyads were randomly assigned to either divergent-divergent, divergent-convergent, or convergent-convergent thinking conditions. The dyads in the divergent thinking condition generated more ideas than those in the convergent and mixed thinking conditions. Interactive dyads had also higher number of ideas than nominal ones. These findings were discussed in the lights of the cognitive stimulation and matching perspectives.
Anahtar Kelime: brainstorming divergent thinking idea generation thinking exercise matching cognitive stimulation group work

Konular: Psikoloji
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Basadur, M., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985). Measuring preference for ideation in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 37-49.
  • Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  • Borgatta, E. R, & Sales, R. F. (1953). Interaction of individuals in re-constitued groups. Sociometry. 16, 302-320.
  • Bouchard, T. J., Drauden, G., & Barsaloux, J. (1974). A comparison of individual, subgroup and total group methods of problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 226-227.
  • Brophy, D. R. (2000). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of convergent and divergent thinkers. Paper presented at the Group Creativity Conference held at The University of Texas at Arlington.
  • Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modelling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495-526.
  • Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68, 1071-1080.
  • Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 159-163.
  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 40-428.
  • Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider. S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Tests of one underlying mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490-503.
  • Coşkun, H. (2000). The effects of out-group comparison, social context, intrinsic motivation, and collective identity in brainstorming groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Arlington.
  • Coşkun, H., & Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J. J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4, 307-329.
  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,497-509.
  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.
  • Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79, 722-735.
  • Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652-663.
  • Eisenberger, R., Haskins, F., & Gambleton, P. (1999). Promised reward and creativity: Effects of prior experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 308-325.
  • Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116-1127.
  • Engelmann, P. D., & Geltys, C. F. (1985). Divergent thinking in act generation. Ada Psychologica, 60, 39-56.
  • Gallupe, R. B.. Bastianutti, L. M, & Cooper. W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied. Psychology. 76, 137-142. Gettys, C. F., Pliske, R. M, Manning, C, & Casey, J. T. (1987). An evaluation of human act generation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 39,23-31.
  • Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. (1975). Task and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 61-65.
  • Horn, E. (1993). The influence of modality order and break period on a brainstorming task. Unpublished manuscript. The University of Texas at Arlington.
  • James. K., & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, cognitive skills, and creativity in different life domains. Creativity Research Journal, 13. 149-159.
  • Janis. I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65, 681-706.
  • Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social psychology Bulletin, 25, 1342-1345.
  • Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses. Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
  • Kirton, M. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and personality. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.). Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics (pp. 282-304). Buffalo. NY: Bearly Limited.
  • Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff. G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring idealional proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361-387.
  • Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal. 12, 175-184.
  • MeGlynn, R. P., McGurk, D., Effland. V. S.. Johll, N. L., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Brainstorming and task performance in groups constrained by evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93. 75-87.
  • Mullen. B., Johnson, C, & Salaş, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-24.
  • Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G. W. (Ed.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-350). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63-84). NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  • Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 531-548.
  • Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Mittleman, D. D. (1995). Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned. In D. Coleman & R. Khanna (Eds.), Groupware: Technology and applications (pp. 149-193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Offner, A. K., Kramer, T. J., & Winter, J. P. (1996). The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27, 283-298.
  • Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Periods of incubation invite illumination. In A. F. Osborn, Applied imagination (pp. 314-325). New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  • Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 633-646.
  • Parnes, S. J. (1992). Source book for creative-problem solving. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
  • Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237-262.
  • Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110-136). NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  • Paulus, P. B., Dugosh, K. L., Dzindolet, M. T., Coşkun, H., & Putman, V. L. (2000). Social and cognitive influences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses. In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 299-325). West Sussex: Eng. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575-586.
  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76-87.
  • Smith, S. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. In S. M.
  • Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 135-156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 15-31). NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  • Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 61-87.
  • Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. J. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd Ed., pp. 883-948). New York: Random.
  • Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1995). Why groups are less effective than their members: On the productivity loss in idea generating groups. In Wolfgang Stroebe and Miles Hewstone (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, 5,271-304.
  • Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming in contexts: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-718.
  • Tardif, T. Z., & Stenberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 429-440). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C, & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23-47.
  • Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Conolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 448-467.
  • Weisberg, R.W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
  • West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245-276). NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
APA Coskun H (2005). Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. , 39 - 42.
Chicago Coskun Hamit Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. (2005): 39 - 42.
MLA Coskun Hamit Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. , 2005, ss.39 - 42.
AMA Coskun H Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. . 2005; 39 - 42.
Vancouver Coskun H Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. . 2005; 39 - 42.
IEEE Coskun H "Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi." , ss.39 - 42, 2005.
ISNAD Coskun, Hamit. "Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi". (2005), 39-42.
APA Coskun H (2005). Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 20(55), 39 - 42.
Chicago Coskun Hamit Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 20, no.55 (2005): 39 - 42.
MLA Coskun Hamit Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, vol.20, no.55, 2005, ss.39 - 42.
AMA Coskun H Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 2005; 20(55): 39 - 42.
Vancouver Coskun H Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 2005; 20(55): 39 - 42.
IEEE Coskun H "Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi." Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 20, ss.39 - 42, 2005.
ISNAD Coskun, Hamit. "Beyin Yazımında Iraksak Düşünme ve Grup Ortamının Düşünce Üretimine Etkisi". Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 20/55 (2005), 39-42.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 11:5

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları