【作者】 王国平；

【导师】 阎力；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 应用心理学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 头脑风暴法是一种广泛使用的创造性技法。头脑风暴法的创始人Osborn及其支持者认为头脑风暴法可以促进创造性思维的发生,但已有的绝大多数实验研究却得出了相反的结果。这些研究证明采用头脑风暴法的互动群体所产生的观点数量少于相同数量个体组成的命名群体,而产生式阻碍、评价焦虑、社会惰化是造成这种结果的主要原因。这些研究基本上是在欧美国家进行,国内很少有关于头脑风暴法的实验研究。本研究以苏州大学的大学生作为被试进行了和头脑风暴法有关的三个实验,探寻了不同变式的头脑风暴法对大学生创造性思维结果的影响。三个实验均以不同变式的头脑风暴法所得观点的数量、质量以及被试的感受作为因变量。实验一考察了头脑风暴法中延迟评价规则的有效性。实验二验证了讨论方式、焦虑程度、群体内成员努力程度的可鉴别度对创造性思维结果的影响。实验三则考察了互动方式的改变对最后产量的影响。实验得出以下结论:1、延迟评价有利于中国大学生提出更多的观点。2、命名群体所得的有效观点的数量多于口头互动群体。3、高焦虑不利于创造性观点的提出。4、纸笔互动群体的产量高于口头互动群体的产量。5、调查问卷结果说明,大多数被试在互动群体中自我投入程度和兴奋度高于命名群体。更多还原

【Abstract】 Brainstorming was originated and first used by Alex F. Osborn in 1939.Within recent years, it has achieved wide acceptance as a means of facilitating creative thinking. However, brainstorming groups have consistently produced fewer ideas than have the equivalent number of individuals working by themselves in previous research. These results have been attributed to production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing in groups. However,most of these experiments were held in the western countries, and only a few were in China.In this paper, we conducted three experiments to investigate the effects of different types of brainstorming on the number and the quality of unique ideas produced by decision-making groups.168 Soochow University undergraduates were involved in this study. Subjects in each condition were given a task to help a poor student to earn enough money for studying and living in the school. In Experiment 1, we examined the tenet of‘not to criticize’. Type of session, variation of evaluation apprehension and identifiability was manipulated in Experiment 2. The effects of communication media was investigated in Experiment 3.The results showed:(1) The tenet of‘not to criticize’has positive value for idea generation to Chinese undergraduates.(2) The number of effective ideas produced by nominal groups was much more than that of oral interaction groups.(3) Inducing evaluation apprehension reduced productivity.(4) The productivity of written brainstorming was much more than that of oral brainstorming.(5) Subjects in interaction groups feel much more satisfied than those in nominal groups.更多还原