I think what we learn from this study is that scientists are great at showing their hypotheses to be true, no matter what they may be. So if two groups have opposing hypotheses, both still get published, the differences only show up in the raw data, and the nuisances are then explained away in the discussion. If it has to do with something as flimsy as behavior, you should put very little trust in the conclusions.

There of course could be all sorts of clever statistical explanations for two experiments coming up with conflicting results, but a simpler explanation seems to be that these two hypotheses aren't in direct opposition.

The abstract of the first says:

> Our results suggest that virtual interaction comes with a cognitive cost for creative idea generation.

and the abstract of the second says

> Three experiments were designed to test the efficacy of ideation procedures that involved alternation of individual and group idea generation sessions (hybrid brainstorming) as compared to traditional individual and group ideation. [...] The results of the experiments support the original suggestion by Osborn (1953) that the most effective brainstorming process is one that involves a variation in individual and group ideation.

This all seems to fit what common sense would have us believe, right? A mix of alone and group time helps, virtual group time isn't a perfect replacement for in-person group time for some tasks.

Not only alone, but disconnected. My brain is seriously altered by the presence of an active and unlimited internet connection.