0
Research Papers

The Impact of Example Modality and Physical Interactions on Design Creativity

[+] Author and Article Information
Christine A. Toh

Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16802
e-mail: christinetoh@psu.edu

Scarlett R. Miller

School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16802
e-mail: scarlettmiller@psu.edu

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received November 15, 2013; final manuscript received May 5, 2014; published online June 11, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Jonathan Cagan.

J. Mech. Des 136(9), 091004 (Jun 11, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1528; doi: 10.1115/1.4027639 History: Received November 15, 2013; Revised May 05, 2014

Interacting with example products is an essential and widely practiced method in engineering design, yet little information exists on how the representation (pictorial or physical) or interaction a designer has with an example impacts design creativity. This is problematic because without this knowledge we do not understand how examples affect idea generation or how we can effectively modify or develop design methods to support example usage practices. In this paper, we report the results of a controlled study with first year engineering design students (N = 89) developed to investigate the impact of a designer's interaction with either a two-dimensional (2D) pictorial image or a three-dimensional (3D) product (through visual inspection or product dissection activities) and the resulting functional focus and creativity of the ideas developed. The results of this study reveal that participants who interacted with the physical example produced ideas that were less novel and less functionally focused than those who interacted with the 2D representation. Additionally, the results showed that participants who dissected the product produced a higher variety of ideas than those that visually inspected it. These results contribute to our understanding of the benefits and role of 2D and 3D designer-product interactions during idea development. We use these findings to develop recommendations for the use of designer-product interactions throughout the design process.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Eckert, C., Stacey, M., and Earl, C., 2005, “Reasoning by References to Past Design,” Proceedings of International Workshop on Studying Designers, Oct. 17–18, Aix-en-Provence, France, pp. 3–21.
Nickerson, R. S., 1999, “Enhancing Creativity,” Handbook of Creativity, R. J.Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University, New York, pp. 392–430.
Buxton, B., 2010, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design, Morgan Kaufmann , Burlington, MA.
Herring, S., Chang, C., Krantzler, J., and Bailey, B., 2009, “Getting Inspired! Understanding How and Why Examples are Used in Creative Design Practice,” Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, Jan. 05–08, pp. 87–96.
Jansson, D., and Smith, S., 1991, “Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 12(1), pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]
Smith, S. M., 1995, “Fixation, Incubation, and Insight in Memory and Creative Thinking,” Creative Cognition Approach, Cambridge, MA, pp. 135–156.
Cropley, A. J., 1999, “Creativity and Cognition: Producing Effective Novelty,” Roeper Rev., 21(4), pp. 253–260. [CrossRef]
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. M., 1992, Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Application, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Ward, T. B., 1995, “What's Old About New Ideas?,” The Creative Cognition Approach, S. M.Smith, T. B.Ward, and R. A.Finke, eds., MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 157–178.
Ward, T. B., 1994, “Structured Imagination: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Exemplar Generation,” Cogn. Psychol., 27(1), pp. 1–40. [CrossRef]
Perttulla, M., and Liikkanen, L., 2006, “Structural Tendencies and Exposure Effects in Design Idea Generation,” ASME Paper No. DETC2006-99123. [CrossRef]
Cacciari, C., Levorato, M. C., and Ciconga, P., 1997, “Imagination at Work: Conceptual and Linguistic Creativity in Children,” Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes, T. B.Ward, S. M.Smith, and J.Vaid, eds., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Chrysikou, E., and Weisberg, W., 2005, “Following the Wrong Footsteps: Fixation Effects of Pictorial Examples in a Design Problem-Solving Task,” J. Exp. Psychol., 31(5), pp. 1134–1148. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., and Schunn, C., 2010, “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(4), pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Purcell, A., and Gero, J., 1996, “Design and Other Types of Fixation,” Des. Stud., 17(4), pp. 363–383. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J. S., 2013, “Design Fixation and Its Mitigation: A Study on the Role of Expertise,” J. Mech. Des., 135(5), p. 051008. [CrossRef]
Wiley, J., 1998, “Expertise as Mental Set: The Effects of Domain Knowledge in Creative Problem Solving,” Mem. Cognit., 26(4), pp. 716–730. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Woodward, R. S., 2004, “Combative Creativity: Resistance to Cognitive Fixation Effects in an Idea Generation Task,” Dissertation, Texas A&M, College Station, TX.
Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., and Kotovsky, K., 2008, “The Role of Timing and Analogical Similarity in the Stimulation of Idea Generation in Design,” Des. Stud., 29(3), pp. 203–221. [CrossRef]
Moss, J., Kotovsky, K., and Cagan, J., 2007, “The Influence of Open Goals on the Acquisition of Problem-Relevant Information,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn., Mem., Cognit., 33(5), pp. 876–891. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J., Wood, K., and Markman, A., 2008, “Modality and Representation in Analogy,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal., Manuf., 22(2), pp. 85–100. [CrossRef]
Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A., and Smith, S. M., 1995, Creativity and the Mind: Discovering the Genius Within, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Perttulla, M., and Liikkanen, L., 2006, “Exposure Effects in Design Idea Generation: Unconscious Plagiarism or a Product of Sampling Probability,” Proc. NordDesign, Reykjavik, Iceland, Aug. 16–18, pp. 42–55.
Gilbert, J. K., and Osborne, R. J., 1980, “The Use of Models in Science and Science Teaching,” Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 2(1), pp. 3–13. [CrossRef]
Ingham, A., and Gilbert, J. K., 1991, “The Use of Analog Models by Students of Chemistry at Higher Education Level,” Int. J. Sci. Edu., 13(2), pp. 193–202. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V., and Linsey, J. S., 2012, “Physical Examples in Engineering Idea Generation: An Experimental Investigation,” Proceedings of International Conference on Design Creativity, Ascona, Switzerland, Oct. 14–17, pp. 23–32.
Toh, C. A., Miller, S. R., and Kremer, G. E., 2014, “The Impact of Team-Based Product Dissection on Design Novelty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(4), p. 041004. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. A., Miller, S. R., and Kremer, G. E., 2013, “The Role of Personality and Team-Based Product Dissection on Fixation Effects,” Adv. Eng. Educ., 3(4), pp. 1–23.
Pertulla, M., and Sipila, P., 2007, “The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation,” J. Eng. Des., 18(1), pp. 93–102. [CrossRef]
Cardoso, C., Badke-Schaub, P., and Luz, A., 2009, “Design Fixation on Non-Verbal Stimuli: The Influence of Simple vs. Rich Pictorial Information on Design Problem-Solving,” ASME Paper No. DETC2009-86826. [CrossRef]
Cardoso, C., and Badke Schaub, P., 2011, “The Influence of Different Pictorial Representations During Idea Generation,” J. Creat. Behav., 45(2), pp. 130–146. [CrossRef]
Reid, T. N., MacDonald, E. F., and Du, P., 2013, “Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(9), p. 091008. [CrossRef]
She, J., and MacDonald, E., 2014, “Priming Designers to Communicate Sustainability,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(1), p. 011001. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V. L., and Linsey, J., 2012, “Physical Models and Design Thinking: A Study of Functionality, Novelty, and Variety of Ideas,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(9), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Youmans, R. J., 2011, “Design Fixation in the Wild: How Physical Interactions and Collaboration Affect Fixation Phenomena,” J. Creat. Behav., 45(2), pp. 101–107. [CrossRef]
Youmans, R. J., 2011, “The Effects of Physical Prototyping and Group Work on the Reduction of Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 32(2), pp. 115–138. [CrossRef]
Brown, V. R., and Paulus, P. B., 2002, “Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations From an Associative Memory Perspective,” Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 11(6), pp. 208–212. [CrossRef]
Collins, A. M., and Loftus, E. F., 1975, “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Memory,” Psychol. Rev., 82(6), pp. 407–428. [CrossRef]
Anderson, J. R., 1983, “A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory,” J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 22(3), pp. 261–295. [CrossRef]
Matlin, M. W., 2005, Cognition, Wiley, NJ.
Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., and Goyal, A., 2011, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York City, NY.
Grantham, K., Okudan, G., Simpson, T. W., and Ashour, O., 2010, “A Study on Situated Cognition: Product Dissection's Effect on Redesign Activities,” Proceedings of Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Quebec, Canada, Aug. 15–18, pp. 617–626.
Lamancusa, J., and Gardner, J., 1999, “Product Dissection in Academia: Teaching Engineering the Way We Learned It,” Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education, Ostrava, Czech Republic, Aug. 10–12, Paper No. 416.
Brereton, M., 1998, “The Role of Hardware in Learning Engineering Fundamentals: An Empirical Study of Engineering Design and Disection Activity,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Dugosh, K., Paulus, P., Roland, E., and Yang, H., 2000, “Cognitive Stimulation in Brainstorming,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 79(5), pp. 722–735. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Verstijnen, I., Van Leeuwen, C., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., and Hennessey, J., 1998, “Sketching and Creative Discovery,” Des. Stud., 19(4), pp. 519–546. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. A., Miller, S. R., and Kremer, G. E., 2012, “Mitigating Design Fixation Effects in Engineering Design Through Product Dissection Activities,” Proceedings of Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, June 7–9.
Toh, C. A., Miller, S. R., and Kremer, G. E., 2012, “The Impact of Product Dissection Activities on the Novelty of Design Outcomes,” Proceedings of ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL, Aug. 12–15, Paper No. IDETC2013-DTM-13087.
Genco, N., Holtta-Otto, K., and Seepersad, C. C., 2012, “An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering Students,” J. Eng. Educ., 101(1), pp. 60–81. [CrossRef]
Wood, K., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J., and Otto, K., 2001, “Reverse Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementally and Systematically Teach Design,” J. Eng. Educ., 90(3), pp. 363–374. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J. S., Clauss, E. F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J. T., Wood, K. L., and Markman, A. B., 2011, “An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(3), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
Shah, J., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24(2), pp. 111–124. [CrossRef]
Acuna, A., and Sosa, R., 2010, “The Complementary Role of Representations in Design Creativity: Sketches and Models,” Design Creativity, Springer, London.
Liu, H., Xie, X., Tang, X., Li, Z. W., and Ma, W. Y., 2004, “Effective Browsing of Web Image Search Results,” Proceedings of 6th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia Information Retrieval, New York City, NY, pp. 84–90.
Pernot, J. P., Falcidieno, B., Giannini, F., and Léon, J. C., 2008, “Incorporating Free-Form Features in Aesthetic and Engineering Product Design: State-of-the-Art Report,” Comput. Ind., 59(6), pp. 626–637. [CrossRef]
Purcell, A. G., and Gero, J. S., 1992, “Effects of Examples on the Results of a Design Activity,” Knowl. Based Syst., 5(1), pp. 82–91. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, S., and Christensen, B. T., 2009, “An In Situ Study of Analogical Reasoning in Novice and Experienced Design Engineers,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(11), p. 111001. [CrossRef]
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., and Kotovsky, K., 2011, “On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(9), pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A dissected milk frother (top), and a section of the bill of materials of the milk frother (bottom) completed by participant 67 in the product dissection condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example brainstorming sketch by participant 48

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Quality scores assessed using the 4-point scale

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Means and standard deviations of functional novelty, form-based novelty, and # of frothing methods of participants that were exposed to 2D and 3D examples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Means and standard deviations of form-based novelty and functional focus scores of participants in the visual inspection and product dissection conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(Left) Example milk frother used in the study. (Right) Written description of the milk frother's ease of use in the visual inspection condition (participant 51).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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