0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

Is Ownership Bias Bad? The Influence of Idea Goodness and Creativity on Design Professionals Concept Selection Practices

[+] Author and Article Information
Xuan Zheng

Mem. ASME
Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
343 Leonhard Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: xxz159@psu.edu

Scarlett R. Miller

Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design, Technology
and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213-P Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802-1401
e-mail: scarlettmiller@psu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received June 30, 2018; final manuscript received November 19, 2018; published online January 4, 2019. Assoc. Editor: James T. Allison.

J. Mech. Des 141(2), 021106 (Jan 04, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: MD-18-1526; doi: 10.1115/1.4042081 History: Received June 30, 2018; Revised November 19, 2018

Ownership bias is a decision-making bias that leads to an individual's tendency to prefer their own ideas over others' during the design process. While prior work has identified the existence of this ownership bias in design professionals, limited work has investigated how the characteristics of the idea set affects this bias. In other words, is a preference for one's own ideas a bad thing if the ideas are truly better? This paper seeks to fill this research void through two design thinking workshops conducted with 45 design professionals recruited from two engineering companies. During the study, the participants individually generated and selected ideas as part of a 2-h team design challenge. The ideas generated were then rated for: (1) their perceived future value by the design team and (2) their creativity by expert raters. The results suggest that design professionals only exhibited ownership bias for ideas that were assessed to have little to no future value in the design process (low in idea goodness). In addition, professionals showed preferences for self-generated ideas that were of high usefulness and elegance but low in creativity, indicating an impact of creativity on ownership bias. These findings provide new evidence on the negative effects of ownership bias on the design process.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Topics: Creativity , Design , Teams
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Onarheim, B. , and Christensen, B. T. , 2012, “Distributed Idea Screening in Stage-Gate Development Processes,” J. Eng. Des., 23(9), pp. 660–673. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, J. B. , and Calantone, R. J. , 2002, “Escalation of Commitment During New Product Development,” J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 30(2), pp. 103–118. [CrossRef]
Mattson, C. A. , and Messac, A. , 2005, “Pareto Frontier Based Concept Selection Under Uncertainty, With Visualization,” Optim. Eng., 6(1), pp. 85–115. [CrossRef]
Nikander, J. B. , Liikkanen, L. A. , and Laakso, M. , 2014, “The Preference Effect in Design Concept Evaluation,” Des. Stud., 35(5), pp. 473–499. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D. , Knetsch, J. L. , and Thaler, R. H. , 1991, “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Lost Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” J. Econ. Perspect., 5(1), pp. 193–206. [CrossRef]
Gutierrez, E. , 2009, “What's a Good Idea? Understanding Evaluation and Selection of New Product Ideas,” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 24–27, pp. 121–132. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:492200/FULLTEXT01.p
Paulus, P. B. , 2000, “Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-Generating Groups,” Appl. Psychol.: An Int. Rev., 49(2), pp. 237–262. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. A. , and Miller, S. R. , “The Preferences for Creativity Scale (PCS): Identifying the Underlying Constructs of Creative Concept Selection,” ASME Paper No. DETC2016-60414.
Larey, T. S. , and Paulus, P. B. , 1999, “Group Preference and Convergent Tendencies in Small Groups: A Content Analysis of Group Brainstorming Performance,” Creativity Res. J., 12(3), pp. 175–184. [CrossRef]
Naquin, C. E. , and Tynan, R. O. , 2003, “The Team Halo Effect: Why Teams are Not Blamed for Their Failures,” J. Appl. Psychol., 88(2), p. 332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Karau, S. J. , and Williams, K. D. , 1993, “Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 65(4), p. 681. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D. , and Egan, P. , 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Thorndike, E. L. , 1920, “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings,” J. Appl. Psychol., 4(1), pp. 25–29. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. , Strohmetz, A. , and Miller, S. , 2016, “The Effects of Gender and Idea Goodness on Ownership Bias in Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 138(10), p. 101105. [CrossRef]
Fischer, G. , 2013, “Learning, Social Creativity, and Cultures of Participation,” Learning and Collective Creativity: Activity-Theoretical and Sociocultural Studies, A. Sannino , and V. Ellis , eds., Routledge, New York, p. 198.
Nikander, J. B. , Liikkanen, L. A. , and Laakso, M. , 2013, “Naturally Emerging Decision Criteria in Product Concept Evaluation,” 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, Human Behaviour in Design, Seoul, South Korea, Aug. 19–22, Paper No. DS 75-7. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/34590/Naturally+emerging+decision+criteria+in+product+concept+evaluation
Rietzschel, E. , Nijstad, B. A. , and Stroebe, W. , 2010, “The Selection of Creative Ideas After Individual Idea Generation: Choosing Between Creativity and Impact,” Br. J. Psychol., 101(1), pp. 47–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kahneman, D. , Knetsch, J. L. , and Thaler, R. H. , 1990, “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” J. Political Econ., 98(6), pp. 1325–1348. [CrossRef]
Alicke, M. D. , 1985, “Global Self-Evaluation as Determined by the Desirability and Controllability of Trait Adjectives,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 49(6), pp. 1621–1630. [CrossRef]
Barone, M. J. , Shimp, T. A. , and Sprott, D. E. , 1997, “Mere Ownership Revisited: A Robust Effect?,” J. Consum. Psychol., 6(3), pp. 257–284. [CrossRef]
Ellis, L. , 1985, “On the Rudiments of Possessions and Property,” Inf. (Int. Soc. Sci. Council), 24(1), pp. 113–143. [CrossRef]
Pierce, J. L. , Kostova, T. , and Dirks, K. T. , 2003, “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Rev. Gen. Psychol., 8(1), pp. 84–107. [CrossRef]
Cooper, R. G. , Edgett, S. J. , and Kleinschmidt, E. J. , 2002, “Optimizing the Stage–Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do,” Res. Technol. Manage., 45(5), pp. 21–27. [CrossRef]
Chernyshenko, O. S. , Miner, A. G. , Baumann, M. R. , and Sniezek, J. A. , 2003, “The Impact of Information Distribution, Ownership, and Discussion on Group Member Judgment: The Differential Cue Weighting Model,” Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process., 91(1), pp. 12–25. [CrossRef]
Jansson, D. , and Smith, S. , 1991, “Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 12(1), pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]
Christiaans, H. , 2002, “Creativity as a Design Criterion,” Creativity Res. J., 14(1), pp. 41–54.
Kudrowitz, B. M. , and Wallace, D. , 2012, “Assessing the Quality of Ideas From Prolific, Early-Stage Product Ideation,” J. Eng. Des., 24(2), pp. 120–139.
Shah, J. J. , Vargas-Hernandez, N. , and Smith, S. M. , 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24(2), pp. 111–134.
Van De Van, A. , and Delbecq, A. L. , 1974, “The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes,” Acad. Manage. J., 17(4), pp. 605–621.
Goldschmidt, G. , and Tatsa, D. , 2005, “How Good are Good Ideas? Correlates of Design Creativity,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 593–611.
Yang, M. C. , 2009, “Observations on Concept Generation and Sketching in Engineering Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(1), pp. 1–11.
Mueller, J. S. , Melwani, S. , and Goncalo, J. A. , 2012, “The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas,” Psychol. Sci., 23(1), pp. 13–17. [PubMed]
Rietzschel, E. F. , Nijstad, B. A. , and Stroebe, W. , 2006, “Productivity is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 42(2), pp. 244–251.
Amabile, T. , 1982, “Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 43(5), pp. 997–1013.
Baer, J. , and McKool, S. S. , 2009, “Assessing Creativity Using the Consensual Assessment Technique,” Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 65–77.
Chen, C. , Kasof, J. , Himsel, A. J. , Greenberger, E. , Dong, Q. , and Xue, G. , 2002, “Creativity in Drawings of Geometric Shapes: A Cross-Cultural Examination With the Consensual Assessment Technique,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychol., 33(2), pp. 171–187.
Kaufman, J. C. , Baer, J. , Cole, J. C. , and Sexton, J. D. , 2008, “A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique,” Creativity Res. J., 20(2), pp. 171–178.
Christiaans, H. , and Venselaar, K. , 2005, “Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., 15(3), pp. 217–236.
Baer, J. , Kaufman, J. C. , and Gentile, C. A. , 2004, “Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to Nonparallel Creative Products,” Creativity Res. J., 16(1), pp. 113–117.
Kaufman, J. C. , Lee, J. , Baer, J. , and Lee, S. , 2007, “Captions, Consistency, Creativity, and the Consensual Assessment Technique: New Evidence of Reliability,” Thinking Skills Creativity, 2(2), pp. 96–106.
Besemer, S. P. , and O'Quin, K. , 1999, “Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample,” Creativity Res. J., 12(4), pp. 287–296.
Brown, R. T. , 1989, “Creativity,” Handbook of Creativity, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 3–32.
Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Psychology Press, New York.
Payne, J. W. , Bettman, J. R. , and Johnson, E. J. , 1992, “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 43(1), pp. 87–131.
Morewedge, C. K. , and Kahneman, D. , 2010, “Associative Processes in Intuitive Judgment,” Trends Cognit. Sci., 14(10), pp. 435–440.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., and Sibony, O., 2011, “Before You Make That Big Decision,” Harvard Bus. Rev., 89(6), pp. 50–60.
Akao, Y., 1994, “Development History of Quality Function Deployment,” The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment, Asian Productivity Organization, Minato, Tokyo, Japan, p. 339.
Boothroyd, G. , 1994, “Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly,” Comput.-Aided Des., 26(7), pp. 505–520.
Sharifi, H. , Ismail, H. , and Reid, I. , 2006, “Achieving Agility in Supply Chain Through Simultaneous ‘Design of’ and ‘Design for’ Supply Chain,” J. Manuf. Technol. Manage., 17(8), pp. 1078–1098.
Eastman, C. M. , 2012, Design for X: Concurrent Engineering Imperatives, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
O'Quin, K. , and Besemer, S. P. , 1989, “The Development, Reliability, and Validity of the Revised Creative Product Semantic Scale,” Creativity Res. J., 2(4), pp. 267–278.
Hoffman, L. R. , and Maier, N. , 1961, “Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups,” J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 62(2), pp. 401–407. [PubMed]
Maurer, C. , and Widmann, J. , 2012, “Conceptual Design Theory in Education Versus Practice in Industry: A Comparison Between Germany and the United States,” Design Engineering and Technical Conferences, Chicago, IL, Aug. 12–15, pp. 277–283.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Example of individual concept selection assessment sheet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Percentage of ideas selected based on idea ownership and idea goodness

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In