The study of minority influence began as reaction to the portrayal of influence as the province of status and numbers and from a realization that minorities need not just be passive recipients of influence but can actively persuade. From these beginnings, a considerable body of research, including ours, has investigated how minority views prevail. . In the decades that followed, we concentrated, not so much on persuasion or attitude change but, rather, on the value of minority views for the stimulation of divergent thinking. Dissent, as has been repeatedly documented, “opens” the mind. People search for information, consider more options and, on balance, make better decisions and are more creative. Dissenters, rather than rogues or obstacles, provide value: They liberate people to say what they believe and they stimulate divergent and creative thought even when they are wrong. The implications for group decision making, whether in juries or companies, have been considerable and there is increasing interest in research and in practice for the value of authentic dissent in teams and in creating “cultures” of innovation.

Effective strategic management requires analysis, decisions and actions by an organization to create and sustain competitive advantage. Gooddecisions are obviously desirable but whether the decision is good is a judgment call, often after the fact, and is itself subject to bias. What is less subject to debate is the process that leads to accuracy or quality decision making. This requires not just access to available information but proper processing, interpretation and integration of that data. Critical is the consideration of multiple options and perspectives at all stages and there are a myriad of reasons why people do not do that. Defective decisions come from poor information search, selective bias in processing the information, a lack of considering alternatives, a failure to examine the risks of the preferred choice and a rush to judgment (Janis and Mann 1977). In short, the selection, interpretation and integration of information is “biased”.

 In this brief overview, we consider “bias” both at the individual and the group level. The overarching perspective is that there are psychological reasons that constrain and bias thought and there are also psychological antidotes that can improve it.  The former are more numerous and well documented than the latter but in both individual and group decision making, the influences are predictable, pervasive and profound, leading at times to defective decision making and at other times to better and even creative decision making.

The literature on maintaining versus changing membership of groups has generally favored stable membership, not only for cohesion and morale but for performance via comfort and shared experience. Extending such a notion to idea generation and brainstorming, one might expect that such stability of membership would simiarly result in comfor and morale and consequently a willingness to "freewheel," to express ideas without undue concern for their value or reception. On the other hand, research on the stimulating properties of dissent, debate and diversity would argue for a change in membership in that it would provide access to differing views, it would lessen the impact of norms that hinder performance, and it could stimulate more divergent and creative thought. The present study investigated idea generation when membership maintained versus completeely changed. We predicted that maintaining membership would increase comfort and morale and also the perception of freedom and creativity but not necessarily creative behavior. Change membership, we predicted, would not serve feelings of comfort or morale nor perceptions of freedom and creativity but would in fact result in more creative behavior, that is, an increase in the number and creativity of the ideas generated. There predictions were supported.

Researchers of group creativity have noted problems such as social loafing, “production blocking,” and especially, evaluation apprehension (Paulus, 2000). Thus, brainstorming techniques have specifically admonished people “not to criticize” their own and others’ ideas, a tenet that has gone unexamined. In contrast, there is research showing that dissent, debate and competing views have positive value, stimulating divergent and creative thought (Nemeth, 2002, in press). In this experimental study, traditional brainstorming instructions admonishing people not to criticize were compared with instructions encouraging people to debate and even criticize. A third condition offered no specific instructions. This study was conducted both in the United States and in France. Results show the value of both types of instructions, but, in general, debate instructions were superior to traditional brainstorming instructions. Further, these findings hold across both cultures. Results are discussed in terms of the positive value of encouraging debate and controversy for idea generation.