Anonymous brainstorming formats can help participants express their ideas more freely. At the same time, the lack of personal attribution may reduce their sense of accountability. When ideas are attributed to individuals from the outset, contributions become more visible. However, participants may then be more likely to withhold unconventional or risky suggestions.
The study therefore investigates a third approach: mixed-anonymity. In this format, participants initially develop their ideas independently and anonymously. The ideas are also evaluated without revealing the names of their creators. Only afterwards are the identities of those who submitted the highest-rated ideas disclosed.
In two field experiments, the researchers compared this format with fully anonymous and non-anonymous conditions. The first experiment found no statistically significant differences in the number, novelty, or user value of the ideas. In the second experiment, ideas generated under mixed-anonymity were rated as more novel. However, no differences were found in idea quantity or user value.
The findings therefore do not suggest that mixed-anonymity is generally superior to other brainstorming formats. Instead, its effects appear to depend on the particular setting and the way the ideation process is designed. The study extends the conventional distinction between anonymous and non-anonymous formats by highlighting the timing and extent of identity disclosure as additional factors in the design of idea-generation processes.
Theresa Wöllner
Doctoral Candidate