Question Description
Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Humanities/Arts 2024 is part of Humanities/Arts preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Humanities/Arts exam syllabus. Information about Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Humanities/Arts 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Humanities/Arts. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Humanities/Arts Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Stroebe and Diehl (1994) conducted a clever piece of research into why brainstorming does not appear to enhance individual creativity. They hypothesized that, during a brainstorming session, because only one group member may speak at a time, other group members have to keep silent, and may be distracted by the content of the group discussion or forget their own ideas. Stroebe and Diehl termed this phenomenon ‘production blocking’, because the waiting time before speaking and the distracting influence of others’ ideas could potentially block individuals from coming up with their own ideas. The results of their subsequent study were clear-cut: participants generated approximately twice as many ideas when they were allowed to express their ideas as they occurred than when they had to wait their turn. But which TWO of the following can we infer from these results? That ‘production blocking’ does not occur in interactive brainstorming groups. That ‘production blocking’ is an important factor explaining the inferiority of interactive brainstorming groups. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas in one group, and then express them to another group. That it may be more effective to ask group members to develop their ideas separately, and then express them in a subsequent joint meeting.a)1 & 2b)2 & 3c)1 & 3d)2 & 4Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Humanities/Arts tests.