In computer-mediated idea generation where contributions can be anonymous, the ability to accurately monitor performances is limited, inducing social loafing. Prior research has suggested that social loafing is likely an important factor in reducing task performance. Researchers have theorized that loafing could be minimized if clear performance feedback is provided. Our prior study evidences a substantial performance gain by the provision of real time performance information about who is contributing and who is not. However, our prior study incorporated the quantity feedback only to create a larger pool of ideas based on the long-standing assumption (i.e., quantity breeds quality), not considering the quality feedback. As a result, taking advantage of anonymity in the form of pseudonymity, individuals in almost all groups exhibited a tendency of self-presentation by capitalizing on ideas of which quality was low and even frivolous (i.e., junk comments) toward the later stages of the session. Thus, we have learned that the quantity performance feedback alone does not have enough restrictiveness to consistently control the performance behavior throughout the session. Since a process chart allows participants to monitor process variation by comparing new performance data to past performance data, we incorporated real-time visual process performance feedback to reveal performance histories by connecting the sequence of idea quality scores in a time-series format. Using this environment, a laboratory experiment was conducted with five-member groups that examined the influence of both identifiability (i.e., anonymity versus pseudonymity) and process performance feedback (i.e., yes or no) in a $2{ imes}2$ factorial design. The result showed that groups in the process performance feedback treatment outperformed groups in the no feedback treatment. Additionally, process performance feedback and identifiability interacted such that groups in the process performance feedback/pseudonymity treatment had the highest performance. The implications of these findings for future research, as well as the implications for the design of group idea generation procedures are discussed.