Recent research has shown that virtual settings can negatively impact interactions within groups. However, few empirical studies have looked at group creative processes in virtual teams, with most research to date focusing on individuals. To address this gap, an experimental study was carried out to compare the creative performance of groups in face-to-face versus virtual environments. 54 groups, each comprised of four individuals, completed two creativity tests interposed with an activity that was designed to familiarize members of the group with each other. The groups were split equally between face-to-face and virtual video-based settings. It was seen in all groups that creative fluency decreased, whilst the originality of ideas generated/selected increased after groups completed a familiarization task. It was further found that the creative fluency of groups was significantly lower in virtual compared to face-to-face environments. By negatively impacting the fluency of the creative process in groups, it is therefore argued that virtual interactions have negative consequences for the number of ideas generated within groups.

1 Introduction

Since the COVID crisis, virtual team working has become increasingly prevalent in organizations and educational environments (Chamakiotis et al. 2021; Flores et al. 2022; Ilieva et al. 2021). Virtual settings have a number of advantages, including the flexibility to work from home (Chamakiotis et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2014), shorter, more focused meetings (Denstadli et al. 2012), reducing costs and allowing teams to be formed across different regions and time zones (Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021; Taras et al. 2019). However, virtual environments have also been associated with more strained and less spontaneous peer-to-peer interactions (Hacker et al. 2020; Jung et al. 2021; Pepple 2022), negatively affecting how individuals cooperate, listen to, and help others (Bowden et al. 2021; Pepple 2022). Furthermore, it is unclear how virtual groups impact creative performance in teams (Chamakiotis et al. 2021; Kniffin et al. 2021; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), with research in this area in the early stages of development (Abi Saad and Agogué 2023; Han et al. 2017). Whilst some argue that creativity in organizations has been the victim of the COVID crisis, especially as it is largely carried out through team collaboration (Amabile and Khaire 2008; Zhou and However 2014), few empirical studies have looked at group creative processes in virtual teams (Brucks and Levav 2022; Grözinger et al. 2020; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), with most research to date focusing on individual creativity (Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021). Creativity is a keystone skill for the workforce of the future and is a central feature for policy in today's knowledge-based economies (Katz-Buonincontro 2012; Wu et al. 2014). Therefore, understanding the creative process in virtual settings is a priority for both organizational and educational research (Yang et al. 2023).

To address this gap, an experimental study was carried out to compare the creative performance of groups in face-to-face versus virtual environments. Groups were equally split between face-to-face and virtual video-based settings, and all groups completed two tests for creative or divergent thinking, the Unusual Uses Task (UUT). In the UUT, participants are given a set time within which to generate as many ideas as possible for a common everyday object, such as a coat hanger (Baird et al. 2012). Creative thinking was measured by the originality and productivity of the ideas that were generated and selected. All the groups completed two UUTs, which were interposed by an icebreaker activity that was designed to familiarize individuals with each other within the two different settings (i.e., face-to-face and virtual environments).

The findings of the study show that the creative fluency of groups is significantly lower in virtual compared to face-to-face environments, where fluency is defined as the total number of nonredundant ideas generated in each of the UUTs (Paulus 2000). No significant difference was found in the originality of ideas generated or selected between the two settings. This research builds on prior research which highlights the difficulties associated with processes of socialization in virtual teams (Breuer et al. 2016; Grözinger et al. 2020; Nemiro 2002), where a deficiency of social cues can lead to individuals not feeling socially connected with others (Curşeu et al. 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), negatively impacting group creative fluency.

The structure of the paper is organized as follows. First, an overview of research on team creative processes in virtual environments is presented, alongside hypotheses linked to creative fluency, the originality of ideas generated, and selected. This is followed by a description of the research method and key findings from the study. Finally, the contribution of the study to research in this area and implications for virtual/hybrid teams are discussed.

2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Virtual teams can be defined as those in which members are geographically dispersed, guided by a common purpose and who collaborate via computer-mediated communication (Abi Saad and Agogué 2023; Allison et al. 2015; Chamakiotis et al. 2021; Townsend et al. 1998). Since the COVID crisis, virtual teams have developed to undertake largely the same work as face-to-face teams in both organizational and educational settings (Abi Saad and Agogué 2023; Chamakiotis et al. 2021; Flores et al. 2022; Ilieva et al. 2021; Pepple 2022). Though virtual teams can overcome constraints associated with time, space, and cost (Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), they also suffer from a number of setbacks with regard to processes of socialization in groups.

In particular, research has found that individuals have difficulties making personal connections and developing mutual trust in virtual settings (Han et al. 2017; Nemiro 2002; Panteli 2004). The informal exchanges, interactions, and communications that facilitate processes of familiarization in face-to-face groups are constrained in virtual settings (Abi Saad and Agogué 2023). Trust here is defined as the willingness of an individual to be vulnerable to the actions of another (Mayer et al. 1995), on the basis of a positive expectation regarding the other in a situation that entails risk to the trusting individual (Baba 1999; Cook and Wall 1980; Currall and Judge 1995). Past research has shown that trust develops in virtual teams through both situational cues (Dibben 2000) and with increased familiarity between team members (Lewicki and Bunker 1995; Panteli 2004). For example, trust can develop through the self-disclosure of personal information (Rempel et al. 1985), and interpersonal relationships deepen as this disclosure becomes more intimate and more reciprocal (Clark and Reis 1988).

The difficulty of building trust in virtual settings is particularly salient for group creativity. Research on group creativity in face-to-face settings has shown that the creative process is negatively affected by a number of social factors (Diehl and Stroebe 1987), including evaluation apprehension, where individuals hold back contributions for fear that others may negatively evaluate them (Camacho and Paulus 1995; Rietzschel et al. 2006). The development of trusting relationships between group members can be seen to reverse these negative effects, as individuals are more likely to share creative ideas (Han et al. 2017). Socialization processes shape group creativity in a number of ways through motivational, social, and cognitive factors (Paulus and Brown 2007). First, as individuals share ideas within the group, they cognitively stimulate the group by triggering associations in the minds of others (Dugosh et al. 2000; Paulus 2000). Second, interactions within the group facilitate the exchanges of ideas and flow of conversation, as individuals build on the contributions of other members (van Oortmerssen et al. 2015). Third, as individuals engage further in the activity of the group, they become increasingly motivated to both listen to others and to share ideas with them (Paulus and Brown 2007). In summary, socialization processes are fundamental to group creativity and influence the development of trust through familiarization.

2.1 Creative Fluency in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

Prior research has shown that social interactions are more constrained in virtual relative to face-to-face teams, and these effects are even more pronounced in newly formed groups (De Guinea et al. 2012; Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2011). Patterns of interaction form soon after the creation of the group (Gersick 1988), acting to coordinate the actions and contributions of team members, as each takes their turn in interactions (Gittell 2002). However, these interactions differ between face-to-face and virtual settings. To begin with, individuals may be distracted in video-based group interactions, negatively impacting conversation flow and creative fluency (Ansah et al. 2022). Research has also shown that participants are more absorbed in the group activity in face-to-face relative to videoconferencing settings, positively impacting creative fluency (Macchi and De Pisapia 2024). Furthermore, a deficiency of social cues in less media-rich virtual settings, such as facial expressions or voice intonation, can result in misunderstandings between individuals (Daft and Lengel 1986). A lack of such cues can lead to individuals not feeling socially connected with others (Curşeu et al. 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), and this can limit communication (De Guinea et al. 2012) and the exchange of ideas within the group (De Dreu et al. 2011; Hogg and Reid 2006). Finally, and as a result of constrained social interactions and a lack of social cues, trust can be more difficult to establish within virtual groups (Breuer et al. 2016; De Guinea et al. 2012; Frey and Lüthje 2011; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), and thus social inhibitory factors such as evaluation apprehension might dominate interactions. Thus, one would expect social interactions to be less constrained in face-to-face relative to virtual settings, resulting in higher creative fluency within the group. Therefore,

Hypothesis 1a.Face-to-face groups generate more ideas than virtual groups.

Over time, as individuals begin to socialize with each other, they are better able to anticipate and predict each other's behavior (Okhuysen and Bechky 2009; Rockett and Okhuysen 2002). Increased familiarization leads to the development of team-specific roles, as each member learns who knows what within the group (Reagans et al. 2005). This growing organization within the group through the emergence of roles can counteract more individualistic behaviors such as production blocking, where a member of the group dominates the conversation, preventing others from speaking (Nijstad et al. 2002; Rietzschel et al. 2006). Instead, the creation of team roles results in a more organized exchange of ideas between individuals, which can facilitate the interaction flow (Harvey 2013; van Oortmerssen et al. 2015). Individuals thus add to the ideas of others through their interactions, leading to a snowballing of idea generation (Paulus and Brown 2007). Furthermore, as individuals become more familiar with each other, they are more likely to listen to others and share ideas with them (Paulus and Brown 2007), further contributing to the collective effort of generating ideas. Stepping away and reflecting in this way can ensure that individuals more fully connect with the ideas generated by others (Paulus and Brown 2007). In summary, as group members become more familiar with each other over time, patterns of interaction emerge within the group (Lei et al. 2016; Stachowski and Kaplan 2009; Zijlstra et al. 2012), resulting in a more organized and measured exchange of ideas, but potentially decreased creative fluency. Given the more constrained social interactions in virtual settings, as noted above, one would expect that the impact of this process of familiarization on creative fluency is less pronounced in virtual relative to face-to-face settings. Therefore,

Hypothesis 1b.The difference in the number of ideas generated between face-to-face groups relative to virtual groups is lower after an icebreaker activity.

2.2 Creative Originality in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

The suppression of social interactions in virtual relative to face-to-face settings may not be detrimental to the creative process when one considers the originality of ideas generated. Prior research on electronic brainstorming (EBS) has found that virtual teams outperform face-to-face groups in terms of creative quality (DeRosa et al. 2007). It is argued that the anonymity in EBS is seen to counteract the effects of evaluation apprehension (Camacho and Paulus 1995; Pissarra and Jesuino 2005). In addition, the use of text boxes in EBS allows ideas to be stored, increasing opportunities for connections to be made and potentially overcoming the negative effects of production blocking (Chang 2011; DeRosa et al. 2007; Michinov et al. 2015). Whilst anonymity is not preserved in video-based virtual teams, impaired communication relative to face-to-face groups may nonetheless have the same positive impact on group creativity (Grözinger et al. 2020). By feeling less pressured to conform, individuals are allowed to more freely express their ideas and are less likely to feel embarrassed (Baltes et al. 2002; Curşeu et al. 2008; Thompson 2021). Furthermore, as talking over others is also more difficult in video-based settings, individuals are forced to listen to the contributions of others (Thompson 2021), positively impacting idea generation (Redlbacher and Hattke 2024).

Therefore, even though virtual settings have disadvantages relative to face-to-face teams, such as the risk of miscommunication and lack of nonverbal cues, they may result in improvements in creative quality. Fosslien and Duffy (2020) found that less rich media is more effective for the generation of ideas, with text-based media even outperforming video-based media. This setting could provide individuals with the time and space to consider and reflect on the information shared by their team members (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2011). Furthermore, by using additional chat features, individuals can support and supplement conversation in ways not possible in face-to-face interactions¹, such as adding comments or images in the chat (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2011). Allowing written chat alongside verbal communication can therefore positively impact idea generation (Standaert et al. 2021). In addition, these commentaries can act as a record or log of the discussions as they unfold (DeRosa et al. 2007), and individuals can add to ideas in ways not necessarily dictated by the flow of conversation, being less inhibited by social norms and group conformity. Therefore,

Hypothesis 2a.Face-to-face groups generate ideas which are less original in quality than virtual groups.

Individuals generate ideas by making novel associations between different concepts, and interactions within groups can trigger associations between individuals that would not have occurred if those individuals were isolated (Paulus 2000; Paulus and Brown 2007). As group members familiarize themselves with each other, patterns of interaction emerge, increasing the co-construction of ideas, as noted above (van Oortmerssen et al. 2015). As a result, this increase in interaction flow enables individuals to build on the ideas of others, facilitating the process through which associations are made (Harvey 2013). Therefore, one might argue that as the group becomes more organized over time through familiarization, face-to-face groups would outperform virtual groups, generating more original ideas. So whilst one would expect virtual groups to generate ideas that are more original than face-to-face groups, this difference would become less pronounced with familiarization. In summary, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2b.The difference in the originality of ideas generated between face-to-face groups relative to virtual groups is lower after an icebreaker activity.

2.3 Idea Selection in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

The evaluation and selection of ideas is also shaped by social factors (Ritter et al. 2020), and constrained social interactions in virtual settings may have a positive effect on this process. Social interactions facilitate the convergence of individual views, as a consensus of opinion emerges (Janis 1972; Van de Ven 1986). As noted above, in video-based settings individuals are more likely to be distracted (Ansah et al. 2022), to be less connected/engaged in the group (Curşeu et al. 2008; Macchi and De Pisapia 2024; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), and to misunderstand others due to a lack of social cues (Daft and Lengel 1986). This can limit communication (De Guinea et al. 2012) and the exchange of ideas within the group (De Dreu et al. 2011; Hogg and Reid 2006). Virtual groups take longer to make decisions because members are less able to anticipate each other's reactions or make inferences about their knowledge (Hollingshead and McGrath 1995). Virtual groups are also less affected by group norms and are even more likely to experience conflict than face-to-face groups (De Guinea et al. 2012). By feeling less pressured to conform, individuals are more likely to differ in their opinions, which can have a positive impact on the evaluation of ideas. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3a.Face-to-face groups select ideas which are less original in quality than virtual groups.

As team members become more familiar with each other over time, a consensus of opinion can develop within the group. Such a convergence in opinion may lead to group members avoiding conflict when evaluating ideas generated by others in the group (Putman and Paulus 2009; Stasser and Birchmeier 2003). Familiarization may also lead to the emergence of roles within the group, which can further promote convergent thinking and suppress divergence in opinion (Nemeth and Ormiston 2007). As a result, the behaviors of individuals can converge over time, engaging less in discussing and critically evaluating ideas generated (Katz 1982). As a result of these factors, groups are less critical in the evaluation and selection of ideas as they become more familiar with each other, instead selecting ideas which reflect the shared views of the group as opposed to more divergent ideas (Blair and Mumford 2007; Stasser et al. 2000; Stewart and Stasser 1995). In prior studies of face-to-face groups, it was seen that ideas which agree with the norms of the group are evaluated as creative when the social identity of members is more salient than individual identity (Adarves-Yorno et al. 2006). Groups therefore risk selecting ideas prematurely when they are too cohesive or consensus-driven (Paulus 1998), as group members restrain from expressing differences in opinion (Nijstad and Paulus 2003), or attending to all possible alternatives (Stasser 1999). The lower levels of familiarization which occur in virtual settings may therefore further impair the emergence of conformity and consensus within the group and have a positive effect on the quality of the evaluation and selection processes. In summary:

Hypothesis 3b.The difference in the originality of ideas selected between face-to-face groups relative to virtual groups is greater after an icebreaker activity.

3 The Present Study

In this study, the creative performance of groups in face-to-face versus virtual environments was compared. Microsoft Teams was chosen as the virtual environment given the richness of the media and its widespread use in organizational and educational settings globally. Microsoft Teams enables multiple, simultaneous methods of communication, including comments in text form or sharing of information via graphics (Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021). All groups completed two tests for creative or divergent thinking, the Unusual Uses Task (UUT). In the UUT, participants are given a set time within which to generate as many ideas as possible for a common everyday object, such as a coat hanger (Baird et al. 2012). The creative process is measured in terms of the number of ideas generated, the originality of those ideas generated, and the ideas selected. Each group completed two UUTs, interposed with an icebreaker activity designed to stimulate familiarity between group members within the two different settings (i.e., face-to-face and virtual environments).

4 Method

4.1 Participants

A total of two hundred and sixteen business and management students completed this study, aged between 19 and 21 years old (mean 20.24; SD, 1.40). 100 participants were female. All participants were informed of the nature of the research before consenting to take part, in accordance with the institution's ethics policy. The participants completed the task as partial fulfillment of a course requirement and were randomly split into 54 groups, each of which comprised four individuals.

4.2 Process

These groups were in turn randomly assigned to either face-to-face or virtual settings. The tasks were completed as follows.

4.2.1 First UUT

The UUT was completed differently to suit face-to-face and virtual settings. In the face-to-face setting, each group sat together around a table and was given one sheet of A4 paper to note down ideas generated. Group members were invited to generate through verbal discussions as many uses as possible for a given object and were assigned one of three everyday objects: a metal coat hanger, a white paper cup, or a blank A4 sheet of paper. For the 27 face-to-face groups, 9 groups used the coat hanger, 9 groups used the paper cup, and 9 groups used the paper sheet. Each group was given 10 min for this task. During this period, the facilitator left the group alone. On completion of this task, each group was asked to verbally discuss the ideas, reach a consensus, and select their best idea. Groups were allowed up to 5 min to complete this selection process. The completed list of ideas generated was then given back to the study facilitator. In the virtual setting, the four individuals in each group completed the task remotely in Microsoft Teams, dialing in from quiet locations at a set time. Again, the three items were equally distributed to the 27 virtual groups: 9 groups used the coat hanger, 9 groups used the paper cup, and 9 groups used the paper sheet. At the beginning of the session, participants were asked to switch on their cameras and microphones. Group members were then invited to generate as many ideas as possible through verbal discussions for one of the same three commonly used objects over a 10 min period. Groups were instructed to also use the Teams chat to write ideas generated. During this period, the facilitator left the Teams chat. Following this generation phase, the facilitator returned, and groups were again instructed to verbally discuss the ideas, reach a consensus and select their best idea, and note the selection in the Teams chat.

4.2.2 Familiarization Activity

After groups completed the first UUT, they completed an icebreaker activity designed to increase levels of familiarity within the group. This task lasted 5 min, and individuals were invited to “get to know each other” by each describing the best movie they had seen in the previous year. The purpose of this task was to prompt group members to disclose personal preferences. The sharing of personal information, such as the favorite movie or book exercise, is a commonly used icebreaker in educational settings, introduced at the beginning of programs of study to encourage teamwork, break down barriers and build trust within the group (Fisher and Tucker 2004; Murray 2000). All members of the group were asked to contribute to this activity over the 5 min, thereby ensuring that conversations were not dominated by any one individual.

4.2.3 Second UUT

Following this activity, all groups completed a second UUT, similar to the first task. In other words, they were asked to generate as many ideas as possible for the same object as the first task. In this second task, however, they were asked to note down only those ideas that were different from the first list generated.

4.3 Independent Variables

4.3.1 Setting

The group setting is the between-subject variable, and as noted above, 27 groups completed the experiment in a face-to-face setting, with a further 27 groups completing the tasks in virtual settings.

4.3.2 Familiarization

The within-subject independent variable is familiarization, with the first UUT completed pre-familiarization and the second UUT completed post-familiarization.

4.4 Dependent Variables

4.4.1 The Creative Fluency of the Group

Following prior research (e.g., Paulus 2000), the fluency of the group creative process was calculated as the total number of nonredundant ideas generated in each of the UUTs (Paulus 2000).

4.4.2 The Frequency of Ideas Generated

The frequency of each idea generated was determined on the basis of its occurrence within the larger pool of ideas generated. First the ideas generated across all the studied groups were collated in an excel file. These ideas were grouped together around similar concepts. For example, “hanging clothes”, “hanging jacket”, and “hanging up clothes” were grouped together as a “hanging clothes” theme. The frequency of each idea was then calculated as the number of times that idea occurred in this collated list of all ideas generated (Dennis et al. 1997). Table 1 shows the ten most frequent ideas generated for each object, together with the frequency of occurrence. The more frequent an idea is within the pool of ideas, then the lower its originality.

TABLE 1. The most common ideas generated in the UUTs.

Paper sheet		Paper cup		Metal coat hanger
Idea	Freq	Idea	Freq	Idea	Freq
Notepad	17	Drinking games	16	Pick a lock	11
Toilet paper	14	Container	10	Hanging clothes	10
Poster	13	To use as a stencil	8	Pick things up with hook	9
Art	11	To eat things out of it	7	Melt into scrap metal	8
Origami	10	String phone	7	Spear	8
Decoration	9	Decorating	6	Hang plant pots	6
Clothes	9	Flower pot	6	Kebab skewer	6
Burn it	8	Party hat	6	Antenna	5
Recycle it	8	Megaphone	6	Sculpting into art work	5
Wrapping paper	8	Children's toy	5	Bow and arrow	5

For instance, the idea “pick a lock” was seen 11 times in the UUTs where a coat hanger was the given object. Clearly the larger this number, then the less original the idea, and vice versa. Using this method, a frequency score was given for each idea generated, and an average frequency score was calculated for each UUT completed.

4.4.3 The Frequency of Ideas Selected

Using these scores, the frequency of ideas selected at the end of each UUT was also calculated (Rietzschel et al. 2010).

5 Results

5.1 The Creative Fluency of the Group

To investigate hypotheses 1a and 1b, a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA design was used. The first factor was the within-subjects factor of familiarization, with two levels, pre- and post-familiarization. The second factor was the between-subjects factor of setting (i.e., face-to-face and virtual). The dependent variable was creativity fluency.

The main effect of setting was significant: F(1, 52) = 28.02, p < 0.001, partial η²_p = 0.350 (see Table 2). In the first UUT, the face-to-face groups generated a mean of 22.96 ideas versus 13.96 for the virtual groups. In the second UUT, the face-to-face groups generated a mean of 19.41 ideas versus 7.89 for the virtual groups. Therefore, hypothesis 1a is supported (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. The 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA analysis of creative fluency comparing virtual/face-to-face groups and pre-/post-familiarization.

	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	F	p	F	p	F	p	η²_p
	Face-to-face N = 27		Virtual N = 27		Familiarization		Setting		Familiarization × setting
Creative fluency	22.96 (9.59)	19.41 (8.95)	13.96 (7.82)	7.89 (5.12)	22.03	< 0.001	28.02	< 0.001	42.82	1.51	0.028

The setting by familiarization interaction was not significant: F(1, 52) = 1.51, p = 0.225, partial η²_p = 0.028, and therefore hypothesis 1b is not supported.

The main effect of familiarization was also significant: F(1, 52) = 22.03, p < 0.001, partial η²_p = 0.298. In the face-to-face setting, groups generated a mean of 19.41 ideas in the second UUT compared to a mean of 22.96 in the first UUT. In the virtual setting, groups generated a mean of 7.89 ideas in the second UUT compared to a mean of 13.96 in the first UUT. In summary, all groups generated fewer ideas after familiarization, regardless of the setting.

5.2 The Frequency of Ideas Generated

To investigate hypotheses 2a and 2b, a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA design was used. The first factor was the within-subjects factor of familiarization, with two levels, pre- and post-familiarization. The second factor was the between-subjects factor of setting (i.e., face-to-face and virtual). The dependent variable was the frequency of ideas generated. The greater the frequency, the lower the originality of ideas.

The main effect of setting was not significant: F(1, 52) = 0.947, p = 0.335, partial η²_p = 0.018 (see Table 3). In the first task, the mean frequency of ideas generated by face-to-face groups was 4.64 compared to 4.87 for the virtual groups. This tendency was also seen in the second UUT, with face-to-face groups generating ideas with a mean originality of 2.83 versus 3.12 for the virtual groups. However, in both cases, the results are not significant and therefore, hypothesis 2a is not supported (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. The 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA analysis of frequency of ideas generated comparing virtual/face-to-face groups and pre-/post-familiarization.

	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	F	p	F	p	F	p	η²_p
	Face-to-face N = 27		Virtual N = 27		Familiarization		Setting		Familiarization × setting
Frequency of ideas generated	4.64 (1.45)	2.83 (1.12)	4.87 (2.25)	3.12 (2.09)	42.08	< 0.001	0.947	0.335	0.489	0.487	0.009

The familiarization by setting interaction was not significant: F(1, 52) = 0.489, p = 0.487, partial η²_p = 0.009, and therefore hypothesis 2b is not supported.

The main effect of familiarization was significant: F(1, 52) = 42.08, p < 0.001, partial η²_p = 0.447. The mean frequency of ideas generated by face-to-face groups was 4.64 in the first UUT, compared to 2.83 in the second UUT. In the virtual setting, the mean frequency of ideas generated decreased from 4.87 in the first UUT to a mean of 3.12 in the second UUT. In summary, all groups generated ideas that were more original (i.e., lower frequency) after familiarization, regardless of the setting.

5.3 The Frequency of Ideas Selected

To investigate hypotheses 2a and 2b, a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA design was used. The first factor was the within-subjects factor of familiarization, with two levels, pre- and post-familiarization. The second factor was the between-subjects factor of setting (i.e., face-to-face and virtual). The dependent variable was the frequency of ideas selected. The greater the frequency, the lower the originality of ideas.

The main effect of setting was not significant: F(1, 52) = 1.13, p = 0.293, partial η²_p = 0.021 (see Table 4). In this first task, the mean frequency of ideas selected by face-to-face groups was 6.74 compared to 6.44 for the virtual groups. This effect was reversed in the second UUT, with face-to-face groups selecting ideas with a mean frequency score of 2.56 versus 4.74 for the virtual groups. However, here the virtual groups selected ideas which were of poorer quality (i.e., higher frequency score). Therefore, hypothesis 3a is not supported.

TABLE 4. The 2 × 2 Mixed ANOVA analysis of frequency of ideas selected comparing virtual/face-to-face groups and pre-/post-familiarization.

	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	Pre-familiar M (SD)	Post-familiar M (SD)	F	p	F	p	F	p	η²_p
	Face-to-face N = 27		Virtual N = 27		Familiarization		Setting		Familiarization × setting
Frequency of ideas selected	6.74 (5.14)	2.56 (1.87)	6.44 (5.30)	4.74 (4.50)	13.15	< 0.001	1.13	0.293	2.33	0.133	0.043

The familiarization by setting interaction was not significant: F(1, 52) = 2.33, p = 0.133, partial η²_p = 0.043, and therefore hypothesis 3b is not supported.

The main effect of familiarization was significant: F(1, 52) = 13.15, p < 0.001, partial η²_p = 0.202. The mean frequency of ideas selected by face-to-face groups was 6.74 in the first UUT, compared to 2.56 in the second UUT. In the virtual setting, the mean frequency of ideas selected decreased from 6.44 in the first UUT to a mean of 4.74 in the second UUT. In summary, all groups selected ideas that were more original (i.e., lower frequency) after familiarization, regardless of the setting.

6 Discussion

It is seen above that the creative fluency of groups is significantly lower in virtual compared to face-to-face environments. However, the originality of ideas generated and selected within groups did not differ between face-to-face and virtual settings. In summary, newly formed groups working in virtual settings are less creatively productive than groups working in face-to-face settings, pointing to the difficulties associated with social interactions between team members in virtual settings (Han et al. 2017; Nemiro 2002; Panteli 2004). Focusing on creativity within groups, it shows how these difficulties translate into lower levels of creative fluency. This finding supports recent research which showed that pairs of individuals working in virtual settings generate fewer ideas, compared to those working face-to-face (Brucks and Levav 2022). However, whilst Brucks and Levav (2022) found that virtual groups also generate less creative ideas, no significant difference between virtual and face-to-face settings was found in this study. Increasing the degree of communication and collaboration within groups can improve creative performance (Drach-Zahavy and Somech 2001; Hülsheger et al. 2009; Lovelace et al. 2001). However, in virtual settings, prior research has shown that interactions and communications are constrained relative to face-to-face settings (Abi Saad and Agogué 2023). A deficiency of social cues in such virtual settings can lead to individuals not feeling socially connected with others (Curşeu et al. 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), which can limit communication (De Guinea et al. 2012) and the exchange of ideas within the group (De Dreu et al. 2011; Hogg and Reid 2006).

Past research has found that the deficiency of nonverbal cues in virtual environments reduces the capacity for individuals to transmit and receive interpersonal impressions (Short et al. 1976). Nonverbal cues can include voice quality, vocal inflections, physical appearance, bodily movements, and facial expressions, which are constrained and distorted in virtual settings. These nonverbal cues are important to confirm or disconfirm agreement between individuals (Cissna and Sieburg 1981), for example, following the sharing of a creative idea. Importantly, these cues have an immediacy effect in face-to-face interactions, as individuals dynamically alter their physical proximity, smile, make eye contact, and change body orientation (Walther et al. 2005; Short et al. 1976). For instance, gaze is important in face-to-face communication for indicating turn-taking, and projecting a sense of intimacy between individuals (Argyle and Cook 1976; Degutyte and Astell 2021). These nonverbal cues are more constrained in virtual settings. Therefore, when an individual shares an idea, or shares a preference for a particular movie say, they expect immediate nonverbal confirmatory responses from others including head nods, smiles and eye contact. Verbal responses (e.g., “yes, I agree”) might partially replace nonverbal cues to some extent (Walther et al. 2005), but nonverbal cues can be absent or even distorted in virtual environments. If the transmission or interpretation of cues is distorted in this way, the effect can be worse than sending no visual cue at all (Mukawa et al. 2005).

6.1 Increasing Familiarization and Creative Performance

The findings of this study also show a significant change in creative performance before and after the familiarization task, regardless of the setting. While creative fluency decreased over time, the originality of ideas generated and selected increased. Increasing the familiarity of team members can lead to the development of roles within the group (Reagans et al. 2005), resulting in a more organized exchange of ideas between individuals (Harvey 2013; van Oortmerssen et al. 2015). As individuals become more familiar with each other, they are more likely to listen to others, share ideas with them, and so more fully connect with the ideas generated by others (Paulus and Brown 2007). Furthermore, these interactions can trigger associations between individuals (Paulus 2000; Paulus and Brown 2007) increasing the co-construction of ideas (van Oortmerssen et al. 2015). So with increased familiarization, the creative fluency of the groups decreased, while the originality of ideas generated increased. However, there was no significant difference in this effect between virtual and face-to-face settings, as the interaction effect between familiarization and setting was not significant for any of the measures.

Increasing the familiarity between group members can build interpersonal trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1995; Panteli 2004), for example through the self-disclosure of personal information (Clark and Reis 1988; Rempel et al. 1985). Building interpersonal trust and familiarity may even counteract some of the negative effects of evaluation apprehension (Camacho and Paulus 1995; Rietzschel et al. 2006), with individuals more likely to share creative ideas (Han et al. 2017), listen to the contributions of others (Paulus and Brown 2007), and thus further contribute to the collective effort of generating ideas. The findings above confirm this positive impact on familiarity on creative performance regardless of the setting.

6.2 Implications for Practice

Research has shown that the interaction environment of virtual settings allows individuals the time and space to consider and reflect on information shared by team members (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2011), improving group creative performance by impairing communication (Grözinger et al. 2020). In other words, by feeling less pressured to conform, individuals are allowed to more freely express their ideas and are less likely to feel embarrassed (Baltes et al. 2002; Curşeu et al. 2008). Indeed, prior research on EBS has found that virtual teams outperform face-to-face groups in terms of creative quality (DeRosa et al. 2007), pointing to the potential role played by anonymity in counteracting the effects of evaluation apprehension (Pissarra and Jesuino 2005). However, the findings above stress instead the importance of social interactions, even in virtual settings. Social cues are vital in the beginnings of group formation as they aid emergent understandings (Daft and Lengel 1986) and help individuals feel socially connected with others (Curşeu et al. 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021).

When considering hybrid teams that interact in both face-to-face and virtual settings, it is therefore recommended that initial interactions occur face-to-face, in order to develop familiarity and interpersonal trust (Hadjielias et al. 2021; Handy 1995). This gives team members the opportunity to feel socially connected (Curşeu et al. 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021), and build trust with other members of their team (Breuer et al. 2016; De Guinea et al. 2012; Frey and Lüthje 2011; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021). After all, patterns of interaction emerge quickly following group formation, and these can have a long-lasting impact on the behavior of the group (Gersick 1988). As team members become more familiar with each other, interactions can become increasingly virtual over time (Coenen and Kok 2014).

6.3 Limitations and Future Research

A number of limitations should be noted with the current study. First, the experiments were limited in duration and focused on the context of educational settings, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should therefore explore the impact of virtual settings in other contexts, such as organizational teams in different industries, and over longer periods of time. Second, and given that the experiments were carried out at the beginning of the students' program of study, it was assumed that they had not worked together previously in group settings, and a key limitation of the study is that a manipulation check was not carried out to confirm the prior relationship between group members.

Recent research comparing the creative performance of pairs of individuals between face-to-face and virtual settings showed that virtual teams underperform relative to face-to-face pairs in terms of creative fluency and idea quality, but select better quality ideas (Brucks and Levav 2022). In the latter study, it was seen that participants in virtual settings narrowed their field of vision onto the computer screen, filtering out peripheral visual stimuli, and also constraining the associative processes underlying idea generation (Brucks and Levav 2022; Rietzschel et al. 2006). The findings above highlight the additional role played by familiarization processes in virtual groups, and exploring further the impact this has on group creativity is an important avenue for future research.

Whilst this study was designed to initiate and compare familiarization processes within groups, additional measures designed to capture the richness of social interactions should be included in future investigations, including physical proximity, visual cues, smiles, eye contact, body orientation, and trust (Mukawa et al. 2005; Reiter-Palmon et al. 2021; Short et al. 1976; Walther et al. 2005). Further research might also explore the emergence of interaction patterns within face-to-face and virtual group settings (van Oortmerssen et al. 2015), which can be captured through discourse analysis on group interactions. In this way, the mediating effect of patterns of interaction on the relationship between familiarity and creative performance can be explored. Finally, this study used Microsoft Teams as the virtual platform, and future research should explore the impact of different types of virtual settings and the richness of media and communications (Grözinger et al. 2020) on the group creative process.

7 Conclusion

This paper set out to explore the differences in creative performance of groups between virtual and face-to-face environments, and it was seen that the creative fluency of groups was significantly lower in virtual compared to face-to-face settings. Constraining the fluency of the creative process in groups, virtual interactions therefore result in a less rich peer discussion with negative consequences for the development of interpersonal familiarity, potentially exacerbating the inhibiting effects of evaluation apprehension.

Ethics Statement

Informed consent was approved from participants in accordance with the institutional ethics approval process.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Endnotes

¹ Assuming participants in face-to-face settings do not take/share notes.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the author upon request.

References

Abi Saad, E., and M. Agogué. 2023. “Creativity in Virtual Teams: Systematic Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda.” Creativity and Innovation Management 32, no. 1: 117–140.
10.1111/caim.12540
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Adarves-Yorno, I., T. Postmes, and S. Alexander Haslam. 2006. “Social Identity and the Recognition of Creativity in Groups.” British Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 3: 479–497.
10.1348/014466605X50184
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Allison, B. B., M. L. Shuffler, and A. M. Wallace. 2015. “ The Successful Facilitation of Virtual Team Meetings.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science, 680–706. Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9781107589735.029
Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., and M. Khaire. 2008. “Your Organization Could Use a Bigger Dose of Creativity.” Harvard Business Review 86, no. 10: 101–109.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ansah, A. A., Y. Xing, A. V. Kamaraj, et al. 2022. “ ‘I need to respond to this’–Contributions to group creativity in remote meetings with distractions.” In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work, 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery.
Google Scholar
Argyle, M., and M. Cook. 1976. Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge University Press.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Baba, M. 1999. “Dangerous Liaisons: Trust, Distrust, and Information Technology in American Work Organizations.” Human Organization 58, no. 3: 331–346.
10.17730/humo.58.3.ht622pk6l41l35m1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Baird, B., J. Smallwood, M. D. Mrazek, J. W. Kam, M. S. Franklin, and J. W. Schooler. 2012. “Inspired by Distraction: Mind Wandering Facilitates Creative Incubation.” Psychological Science 23: 1117–1122.
10.1177/0956797612446024
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Baltes, B. B., M. W. Dickson, M. P. Sherman, C. C. Bauer, and J. S. LaGanke. 2002. “Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, no. 1: 156–179.
10.1006/obhd.2001.2961
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Blair, C. S., and M. D. Mumford. 2007. “Errors in Idea Evaluation: Preference for the Unoriginal?” Journal of Creative Behavior 41, no. 3: 197–222.
10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01288.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bowden, J. L. H., L. Tickle, and K. Naumann. 2021. “The Four Pillars of Tertiary Student Engagement and Success: A Holistic Measurement Approach.” Studies in Higher Education 46, no. 6: 1207–1224.
10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Breuer, C., J. Hüffmeier, and G. Hertel. 2016. “Does Trust Matter More in Virtual Teams? A Meta-Analysis of Trust and Team Effectiveness Considering Virtuality and Documentation as Moderators.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101, no. 8: 1151–1177.
10.1037/apl0000113
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Brucks, M. S., and J. Levav. 2022. “Virtual Communication Curbs Creative Idea Generation.” Nature 605, no. 7908: 108–112.
10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Camacho, L. M., and P. B. Paulus. 1995. “The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 1071–1080.
10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Chamakiotis, P., E. A. Dekoninck, and N. Panteli. 2013. “Factors Influencing Creativity in Virtual Design Teams: An Interplay Between Technology, Teams and Individuals.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22, no. 3: 265–279.
10.1111/caim.12039
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Chamakiotis, P., N. Panteli, and R. M. Davison. 2021. “Reimagining e-Leadership for Reconfigured Virtual Teams due to Covid-19.” International Journal of Information Management 60: 102381.
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102381
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Chang, C. M. 2011. “New Organizational Designs for Promoting Creativity: A Case Study of Virtual Teams With Anonymity and Structured Interactions.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 28, no. 4: 268–282.
10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.06.004
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cissna, K. N., and E. Sieburg. 1981. “ Patterns of Interactional Confirmation and Disconfirmation.” In Rigor and Imagination: Essays From the Legacy of Gregory Bateson, edited by C. Wilder-Mott and J. H. Weakland, 253–282. Praeger.
Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., and H. T. Reis. 1988. “Interpersonal Processes in Close Relationships.” Annual Review of Psychology 39, no. 1: 609–672.
10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.003141
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Coenen, M., and R. A. Kok. 2014. “Workplace Flexibility and New Product Development Performance: The Role of Telework and Flexible Work Schedules.” European Management Journal 32, no. 4: 564–576.
10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cook, J., and T. Wall. 1980. “New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personal Need Non-Fulfilment.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 53, no. 1: 39–52.
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Currall, S. C., and T. A. Judge. 1995. “Measuring Trust Between Organizational Boundary Role Persons.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64, no. 2: 151–170.
10.1006/obhd.1995.1097
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Curşeu, P. L., R. Schalk, and I. Wessel. 2008. “How Do Virtual Teams Process Information? A Literature Review and Implications for Management.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23, no. 6: 628–652.
10.1108/02683940810894729
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., and R. H. Lengel. 1986. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design.” Management Science 32, no. 5: 554–571.
10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K., B. A. Nijstad, M. N. Bechtoldt, and M. Baas. 2011. “Group Creativity and Innovation: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5, no. 1: 81.
10.1037/a0017986
Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Guinea, A. O., J. Webster, and D. S. Staples. 2012. “A Meta-Analysis of the Consequences of Virtualness on Team Functioning.” Information and Management 49, no. 6: 301–308.
10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Degutyte, Z., and A. Astell. 2021. “The Role of Eye Gaze in Regulating Turn Taking in Conversations: A Systematized Review of Methods and Findings.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 616471.
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616471
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dennis, A. R., J. S. Valacich, T. A. Carte, M. J. Garfield, B. J. Haley, and J. E. Aronson. 1997. “Research Report: The Effectiveness of Multiple Dialogues in Electronic Brainstorming.” Information Systems Research 8: 203–211.
10.1287/isre.8.2.203
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Denstadli, J. M., T. E. Julsrud, and R. J. Hjorthol. 2012. “Videoconferencing as a Mode of Communication: A Comparative Study of the Use of Videoconferencing and Face-To-Face Meetings.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26, no. 1: 65–91.
10.1177/1050651911421125
Web of Science® Google Scholar
DeRosa, D. M., C. L. Smith, and D. A. Hantula. 2007. “The Medium Matters: Mining the Long-Promised Merit of Group Interaction in Creative Idea Generation Tasks in a Meta-Analysis of the Electronic Group Brainstorming Literature.” Computers in Human Behavior 23, no. 3: 1549–1581.
10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dibben, M. R. 2000. Exploring Interpersonal Trust in the Entrepreneurial Venture. MacMillan.
10.1057/9780230509528
Google Scholar
Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1987. “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 497–509.
10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Drach-Zahavy, A., and A. Somech. 2001. “Understanding Team Innovation: The Role of Team Processes and Structures.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 5, no. 2: 111–123.
10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.111
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dugosh, K. L., P. B. Paulus, E. J. Roland, and H. C. Yang. 2000. “Cognitive Stimulation in Brainstorming.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 722–735.
10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.722
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Fan, K. T., Y. H. Chen, C. W. Wang, and M. Chen. 2014. “E-Leadership Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Motivating Language Perspective.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 114, no. 3: 421–437.
10.1108/IMDS-07-2013-0294
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Fisher, M., and D. Tucker. 2004. “Games Online: Social Icebreakers That Orient Students to Synchronous Protocol and Team Formation.” Journal of Educational Technology Systems 32, no. 4: 419–428.
10.2190/DTWH-2LX8-5G5V-C24X
Google Scholar
Flores, M. A., A. Barros, A. M. V. Simão, et al. 2022. “Portuguese Higher Education Students' Adaptation to Online Teaching and Learning in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Personal and Contextual Factors.” Higher Education 83, no. 6: 1389–1408.
10.1007/s10734-021-00748-x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Fosslien, L., and M. W. Duffy. 2020. “How to Combat Zoom Fatigue.” Harvard Business Review 29: 1–6.
Google Scholar
Frey, K., and C. Lüthje. 2011. “Antecedents and Consequences of Interaction Quality in Virtual End-User Communities.” Creativity and Innovation Management 20, no. 1: 22–35.
10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00592.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gersick, C. J. 1988. “Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development.” Academy of Management Journal 31, no. 1: 9–41.
10.2307/256496
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gittell, J. H. 2002. “Coordinating Mechanisms in Care Provider Groups: Relational Coordination as a Mediator and Input Uncertainty as a Moderator of Performance Effects.” Management Science 48, no. 11: 1408–1426.
10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1408.268
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Grözinger, N., B. Irlenbusch, K. Laske, and M. Schröder. 2020. “Innovation and Communication Media in Virtual Teams–an Experimental Study.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 180: 201–218.
10.1016/j.jebo.2020.09.009
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hacker, J., J. Vom Brocke, J. Handali, M. Otto, and J. Schneider. 2020. “Virtually in This Together–How Web-Conferencing Systems Enabled a New Virtual Togetherness During the COVID-19 Crisis.” European Journal of Information Systems 29, no. 5: 563–584.
10.1080/0960085X.2020.1814680
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hadjielias, E., O. L. Dada, A. D. Cruz, S. Zekas, M. Christofi, and G. Sakka. 2021. “How do Digital Innovation Teams Function? Understanding the Team Cognition-Process Nexus Within the Context of Digital Transformation.” Journal of Business Research 122: 373–386.
10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.045
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Han, S. J., C. Chae, P. Macko, W. Park, and M. Beyerlein. 2017. “How Virtual Team Leaders Cope With Creativity Challenges.” European Journal of Training and Development 41: 261–276.
10.1108/EJTD-10-2016-0073
Google Scholar
Handy, C. 1995. “Trust and the Virtual Organization.” Harvard Business Review 73, no. 3: 40.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Harvey, S. 2013. “A Different Perspective: The Multiple Effects of Deep Level Diversity on Group Creativity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49: 822–832.
10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.004
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., and S. A. Reid. 2006. “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory 16, no. 1: 7–30.
10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B., and J. E. McGrath. 1995. “ Computer-Assisted Groups: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research.” In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, edited by R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas, 46–78. Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Hülsheger, U. R., N. Anderson, and J. F. Salgado. 2009. “Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 5: 1128.
10.1037/a0015978
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ilieva, G., T. Yankova, S. Klisarova-Belcheva, and S. Ivanova. 2021. “Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on University Students' Learning.” Information 12, no. 4: 163.
10.3390/info12040163
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink, a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Google Scholar
Jung, J., H. Horta, and G. A. Postiglione. 2021. “Living in Uncertainty: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Higher Education in Hong Kong.” Studies in Higher Education 46, no. 1: 107–120.
10.1080/03075079.2020.1859685
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Katz, R. 1982. “The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 81–104.
10.2307/2392547
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Katz-Buonincontro, J. 2012. “Creativity at the Crossroads: Pragmatic Versus Humanist Claims in Education Reform Speeches.” Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 4: 257–265.
10.1080/10400419.2012.726574
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kniffin, K. M., J. Narayanan, F. Anseel, et al. 2021. “COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action.” American Psychologist 76, no. 1: 63.
10.1037/amp0000716
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lei, Z., M. J. Waller, J. Hagen, and S. Kaplan. 2016. “Team Adaptiveness in Dynamic Contexts: Contextualizing the Roles of Interaction Patterns and In-Process Planning.” Group & Organization Management 41, no. 4: 491–525.
10.1177/1059601115615246
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J., and B. B. Bunker. 1995. “ Trust Relationships: A Model of Trust Development and Decline.” In Conflict, Cooperation and Justice, edited by B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin. Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Lovelace, K., D. L. Shapiro, and L. R. Weingart. 2001. “Maximizing Cross-Functional New Product Teams' Innovativeness and Constraint Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal 44, no. 4: 779–793.
10.2307/3069415
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Macchi, G., and N. De Pisapia. 2024. “Virtual Reality, Face-To-Face, and 2D Video Conferencing Differently Impact Fatigue, Creativity, Flow, and Decision-Making in Workplace Dynamics.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1: 10260.
10.1038/s41598-024-60942-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.” Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3: 709–734.
10.2307/258792
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., L. A. DeChurch, M. Jimenez-Rodriguez, J. Wildman, and M. Shuffler. 2011. “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Virtuality and Information Sharing in Teams.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115, no. 2: 214–225.
10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Michinov, N., E. Jamet, N. Métayer, and B. Le Hénaff. 2015. “The Eyes of Creativity: Impact of Social Comparison and Individual Creativity on Performance and Attention to Others' Ideas During Electronic Brainstorming.” Computers in Human Behavior 42: 57–67.
10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.037
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mukawa, N., T. Oka, K. Arai, and M. Yuasa. 2005. “ What Is Connected by Mutual Gaze? User's Behavior in Video-Mediated Communication.” In CHI'05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1677–1680. Association for Computing Machinery.
10.1145/1056808.1056995
Google Scholar
Murray, B. 2000. “Reinventing Class Discussion Online.” Monitor on Psychology 31, no. 4: 54–56.
Google Scholar
Nemeth, C. J., and M. Ormiston. 2007. “Creative Idea Generation: Harmony Versus Stimulation.” European Journal of Social Psychology 37, no. 3: 524–535.
10.1002/ejsp.373
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Nemiro, J. E. 2002. “The Creative Process in Virtual Teams.” Creativity Research Journal 14, no. 1: 69–83.
10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_6
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Nijstad, B. A., and P. B. Paulus. 2003. “ Group Creativity: Common Themes and Future Directions.” In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, edited by P. B. Paulus and B. A. Nijstad, 326–339. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0015
Google Scholar
Nijstad, B. A., W. Stroebe, and H. F. M. Lodewijkx. 2002. “Cognitive Stimulation and Interference in Groups: Exposure Effects in an Idea Generation Task.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38: 535–544.
10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00500-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A., and B. A. Bechky. 2009. “Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective.” Academy of Management Annals 3, no. 1: 463–502.
10.5465/19416520903047533
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Panteli, N. 2004. “ Situating Trust Within Virtual Teams.” In Virtual Teams: Contemporary Insights, 20–40. ICFAI University Press.
Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B. 1998. “Developing Consensus About Group Think After All Those Years.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73: 362–374.
10.1006/obhd.1998.2767
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B. 2000. “Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-Generating Groups.” Applied Psychology 49: 237–262.
10.1111/1464-0597.00013
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B., and V. R. Brown. 2007. “Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1, no. 1: 248–265.
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
Google Scholar
Pepple, D. G. 2022. “An Ecological Perspective of Student Engagement Through Digital Technology: Practical Application and Implications.” British Educational Research Journal 48: 1216–1231.
10.1002/berj.3823
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pissarra, J., and J. C. Jesuino. 2005. “Idea Generation Through Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 20, no. 3/4: 275–291.
10.1108/02683940510589055
Google Scholar
Putman, V., and P. B. Paulus. 2009. “Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making.” Journal of Creative Behavior 43: 23–39.
10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01304.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reagans, R., L. Argote, and D. Brooks. 2005. “Individual Experience and Experience Working Together: Predicting Learning Rates From Knowing Who Knows What and Knowing How to Work Together.” Management Science 51, no. 6: 869–881.
10.1287/mnsc.1050.0366
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Redlbacher, F., and F. Hattke. 2024. “How Virtual Meetings Stimulate Process Innovations in Organisations: Mixed-Methods Evidence From Emergency Response Providers.” Innovations 26, no. 1: 1–22.
10.1080/14479338.2022.2045998
Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., W. Kramer, J. A. Allen, V. R. Murugavel, and S. A. Leone. 2021. “Creativity in Virtual Teams: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.” Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications 8, no. 1: 165–188.
10.2478/ctra-2021-0011
Google Scholar
Rempel, J. K., J. G. Holmes, and M. P. Zanna. 1985. “Trust in Close Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, no. 1: 95–112.
10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E. F., B. A. Nijstad, and W. Stroebe. 2006. “Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 244–251.
10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E. F., B. A. Nijstad, and W. Stroebe. 2010. “The Selection of Creative Ideas After Individual Idea Generation: Choosing Between Creativity and Impact.” British Journal of Psychology 101: 47–68.
10.1348/000712609X414204
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ritter, S. M., X. Gu, M. Crijns, and P. Biekens. 2020. “Fostering Students' Creative Thinking Skills by Means of a One-Year Creativity Training Program.” PLoS One 15, no. 3: e0229773.
10.1371/journal.pone.0229773
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rockett, T. L., and G. A. Okhuysen. 2002. “Familiarity in Groups: Exploring the Relationship Between Inter-Member Familiarity and Group Behavior.” Research on Managing Groups and Teams 4: 173–201.
10.1016/S1534-0856(02)04008-2
Google Scholar
Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunication. John Wiley.
Google Scholar
Stachowski, A. A., and S. A. Kaplan. 2009. “The Benefits of Flexible Team Interaction During Crises.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 6: 1536–1543.
10.1037/a0016903
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Standaert, W., S. Muylle, and A. Basu. 2021. “How Shall We Meet? Understanding the Importance of Meeting Mode Capabilities for Different Meeting Objectives.” Information & Management 58, no. 1: 103393.
10.1016/j.im.2020.103393
Google Scholar
Stasser, G. 1999. “ The Uncertain Role of Unshared Information in Collective Choice.” In Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, edited by L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, and D. M. Messick, 49–69. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.4324/9781410603227-3
Google Scholar
Stasser, G., and Z. Birchmeier. 2003. “ Group Creativity and Collective Choice.” In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, 85–109. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0005
Google Scholar
Stasser, G., S. I. Vaughan, and D. D. Stewart. 2000. “Pooling Unshared Information: The Benefits of Knowing How Access to Information Is Distributed Among Group Members.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, no. 1: 102–116.
10.1006/obhd.2000.2890
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Stewart, D. D., and G. Stasser. 1995. “Expert Role Assignment and Information Sampling During Collective Recall and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 4: 619–628.
10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.619
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Taras, V., D. Baack, D. Caprar, et al. 2019. “Diverse Effects of Diversity: Disaggregating Effects of Diversity in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of International Management 25, no. 4: 100689.
10.1016/j.intman.2019.100689
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Thompson, L. 2021. “Virtual Collaboration Won't Be the Death of Creativity.” MIT Sloan Management Review 62, no. 2: 42–46.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Townsend, A. M., S. M. DeMarie, and A. R. Hendrickson. 1998. “Virtual Teams: Technology and the Workplace of the Future.” Academy of Management Perspectives 12, no. 3: 17–29.
10.5465/ame.1998.1109047
Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation.” Management Science 32: 590–607.
10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Web of Science® Google Scholar
van Oortmerssen, L. A., C. M. J. van Woerkum, and N. Aarts. 2015. “When Interaction Flows: An Exploration of Collective Creative Processes on a Collaborative Governance Board.” Group & Organization Management 40, no. 4: 500–528.
10.1177/1059601114560586
Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., T. Loh, and L. Granka. 2005. “Let Me Count the Ways: The Interchange of Verbal and Nonverbal Cues in Computer-Mediated and Face-To-Face Affinity.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24, no. 1: 36–65.
10.1177/0261927X04273036
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wu, H. Y., H. S. Wu, I. S. Chen, and H. C. Chen. 2014. “Exploring the Critical Influential Factors of Creativity for College Students: A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 11: 1–21.
10.1016/j.tsc.2013.09.004
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Yang, X., P. Gebbing, E. Lankut, and C. Lattemann. 2023. “Virtual Creativity–Bibliometric Literature Review on Measurements and Factors That Influence Creative Virtual Teamwork.” Creativity Research Journal 35, no. 4: 568–582.
10.1080/10400419.2023.2198300
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Zhou, J., and I. J. However. 2014. “Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1, no. 1: 333–359.
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Zijlstra, F. R. H., M. J. Waller, and S. I. Phillips. 2012. “Setting the Tone: Early Interaction Patterns in Swift-Starting Teams as a Predictor of Effectiveness.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 21, no. 5: 749–777.
10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399
Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume59, Issue3

September 2025

e70043

Exploring Group Creativity in Face-To-Face Versus Virtual Settings

ABSTRACT

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1 Creative Fluency in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

2.2 Creative Originality in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

2.3 Idea Selection in Virtual Versus Face-To-Face Groups

3 The Present Study

4 Method

4.1 Participants

4.2 Process

4.2.1 First UUT

4.2.2 Familiarization Activity

4.2.3 Second UUT

4.3 Independent Variables

4.3.1 Setting

4.3.2 Familiarization

4.4 Dependent Variables

4.4.1 The Creative Fluency of the Group

4.4.2 The Frequency of Ideas Generated

4.4.3 The Frequency of Ideas Selected

5 Results

5.1 The Creative Fluency of the Group

5.2 The Frequency of Ideas Generated

5.3 The Frequency of Ideas Selected

6 Discussion

6.1 Increasing Familiarization and Creative Performance

6.2 Implications for Practice

6.3 Limitations and Future Research

7 Conclusion

Ethics Statement

Conflicts of Interest

Endnotes

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Related

Information