0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

The Effects of Gender and Idea Goodness on Ownership Bias in Engineering Design Education

[+] Author and Article Information
Christine A. Toh

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

Andrew A. Strohmetz

Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: aas5631@psu.edu

Scarlett R. Miller

School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 15, 2016; final manuscript received May 12, 2016; published online August 30, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Katja Holtta-Otto.

J. Mech. Des 138(10), 101105 (Aug 30, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1038; doi: 10.1115/1.4034107 History: Received January 15, 2016; Revised May 12, 2016

Concept selection is a critical stage of the engineering design process because of its potential to influence the direction of the final design. While formalized selection methods have been developed to increase its effectiveness and reduce human decision-making biases, research that understands these biases in more detail can provide a foundation for improving the selection process. One important bias that occurs during this process is ownership bias or an unintentional preference for an individual's own ideas over the ideas of others. However, few studies have explored ownership bias in a design setting and the influence of other factors such as the gender of the designer or the “goodness” of an idea. In order to understand the impact of these factors in engineering design education, a study was conducted with 110 engineering students. The results from this study show that male students tend to show ownership bias during concept selection by selecting more of their own ideas while female students tend to show the opposite bias, the Halo Effect, by selecting more of their team members' concepts. In addition, participants exhibited ownership bias for ideas that were considered good or high quality, but the opposite bias for ideas that were not considered good or high quality. These results add to our understanding of the factors that impact team concept selection and provide empirical evidence of the occurrence of ownership bias and the effects of gender and idea goodness in engineering design education.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

King, A. M. , and Sivaloganathan, S. , 1999, “ Development of a Methodology for Concept Selection in Flexible Design Strategies,” J. Eng. Des., 10(4), pp. 329–349. [CrossRef]
Pugh, S. , 1996, Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston, MA.
Okudan, G. E. , and Tauhid, S. , 2008, “ Concept Selection Methods–A Literature Review From 1980 to 2008,” Int. J. Des. Eng., 1(3), pp. 243–277.
Baddeley, A. , 2003, “ Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” Nat. Rev., 4(1), pp. 829–839. [CrossRef]
Miller, G. A. , 1956, “ The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychol. Rev, 63(1), pp. 81–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
De Martino, B. , Kumaran, D. , Seymour, B. , and Dolan, R. J. , 2006, “ Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain,” Science, 313(5787), pp. 684–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Onarheim, B. , and Christensen, B. T. , 2012, “ Distributed Idea Screening in Stage-Gate Development Processes,” J. Eng. Des., 23(9), pp. 660–673. [CrossRef]
Kruglanski, A. W. , and Webster, D. M. , 1996, “ Motivated Closing of the Mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”,” Psychol. Rev., 103(1), pp. 263–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amabile, T. , 1996, Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Kichuk, S. , and Wiesner, W. , 1998, “ The Big Five Personality Factors and Team Performance: Implications for Selecting Successful Product Design Teams,” J. Eng. Technol. Manage., 14(3–4), pp. 195–221.
Hammond, J. S. , Keeney, R. L. , and Raiffa, H. , 1998, “ The Hidden Traps in Decision Making,” Harv. Bus. Rev., 76(5), pp. 47–58. [PubMed]
Ross, M. , and Sicoly, F. , 1979, “ Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 3(1), pp. 322–336. [CrossRef]
Roese, N. J. , and Olson, J. M. , 1994, “ Attitude Importance as a Function of Repeated Attitude Expression,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 30(1), pp. 39–51. [CrossRef]
Dym, C. W. , Wesner, J. W. , and Winner, L. , 2003, “ Social Dimensions of Engineering Designs: Observations From Mudd Design Workshop III,” J. Eng. Educ., 92(1), pp. 105–107. [CrossRef]
Hambali, A. , Supuan, S. M. , Ismail, N. , and Nukman, Y. , 2009, “ Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process in the Design Concept Selection of Automotive Composite Bumper Beam During the Conceptual Design Stage,” Sci. Res. Essays, 4(4), pp. 198–211.
Huang, H.-Z. , Liu, Y. , Li, Y. , Xue, L. , and Wang, Z. , 2013, “ New Evaluation Methods for Conceptual Design Selection Using Computational Intelligence Techniques,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 27(3), pp. 733–746. [CrossRef]
Cooper, S. Y. , and Lucas, W. A. , 2006, “ Developing Self-Efficacy for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Educational Approach,” Int. J. Entrepreneurship Educ., 4, pp. 141–162.
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]
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, pp. 21–27.
Pelham, B. W. , Mirenberg, M. C. , and Jones, J. T. , 2002, “ Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Implicit Egotism and Major Life Decisions,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 82(4), pp. 469–487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kitayama, S. , and Karasawa, M. , 1997, “ Implicit Self-Esteem in Japan: Name-Letters and Birthday Numbers,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 23(1), pp. 736–742. [CrossRef]
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]
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]
Kahneman, D. , and Tversky, A. , 1979, “ Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291. [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]
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]
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. Hum. Decis. Process., 91(1), pp. 12–25. [CrossRef]
Wittenbaum, G. M. , Hubbell, A. P. , and Zuckerman, C. , 1999, “ Mutual Enhancement: Toward an Understanding of the Collective Preference for Shared Information,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 77(5), pp. 967–978. [CrossRef]
Van Swol, L. M. , 2007, “ Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias,” Group Process. Intergroup Relat., 10(2), pp. 239–256. [CrossRef]
Kling, K. C. , Hyde, J. S. , Showers, C. J. , and Buswell, B. N. , 1999, “ Gender Difference in Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychol. Bull., 125(4), pp. 470–500. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beyer, S. , 1990, “ Gender Differences in the Accuracy of Self-Evaluations of Performance,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 59(5), pp. 960–970. [CrossRef]
Lenney, E. , 1977, “ Women's Self-Confidence in Achievement Settings,” Psychol. Bull., 84(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Meehan, A. M. , and Overton, W. F. , 1986, “ Gender Differences in Expectancies for Success and Performance on Piagetian Spatial Tasks,” Merril-Palmer Q., 32(1), pp. 427–441.
Bornmann, L. , Rüdinger, M. , and Daniel, H. , 2007, “ Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis,” J. Inf., 1(3), pp. 226–238. [CrossRef]
Pearsall, M. J. , Ellis, A. P. J. , and Evans, J. M. , 2008, “ Unlocking the Effects of Gender Faultlines on Team Creativity: Is Activation Key?” J. Appl. Psychol., 93(1), pp. 225–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hutchison, M. A. , Follman, D. K. , Sumpter, M. , and Bodner, G. M. , 2006, “ Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of First-Year Engineering Students,” J. Eng. Educ., 95(1), pp. 39–47. [CrossRef]
Takai, S. , and Ishii, K. , 2010, “ The Maximum Resource Allocation for Uncertainty Reduction in a Decision-Analytic Concept Selection,” Concurrent Eng.: Res. Appl., 18(1), pp. 19–29. [CrossRef]
Amabile, T. M. , 1983, “ The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 45(2), pp. 357–376. [CrossRef]
Christiaans, H. , 2002, “ Creativity as a Design Criterion,” Creativity Res. J., 14(1), pp. 41–54. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
Nelson, B. A. , and Wilson, J. O. , 2009, “ Redefining Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 30(6), pp. 737–743. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J. , Vargas-Hernandez, N. , and Smith, S. M. , 2003, “ Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24(1), pp. 111–134. [CrossRef]
Goldschmidt, G. , and Tatsa, D. , 2005, “ How Good Are Good Ideas? Correlates of Design Creativity,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 593–611. [CrossRef]
Gutierrez, E. , 2009, “ What's a Good Idea? Understanding Evaluation and Selection of New Product Ideas,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 24–27, pp. 121–132.
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. [CrossRef]
Beggan, J. K. , 1992, “ On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 62(2), pp. 229–237. [CrossRef]
Rietzchel, E. F. , Nijstad, B. A. , and Stroebe, W. , 2006, “ Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Groups in Idea Generation and Selection,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 42(2), pp. 244–251. [CrossRef]
Cooper, R. G. , and Brentani, U. , 1984, “ Criteria for Screening New Industrial Products,” Ind. Mark. Manage., 13(3), pp. 149–156. [CrossRef]
Ulrich, K. T. , Eppinger, S. D. , and Goyal, A. , 2011, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Amabile, T. , 1982, “ Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensusual Assessment Technique,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 43(5), pp. 997–1013. [CrossRef]
Faul, F. , Erdfelder, E. , Lang, A. G. , and Buchner, A. , 2007, “ G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences,” Behav. Res. Methods, 39(2), pp. 175–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eagly, A. H. , Ashmore, R. D. , Mikhijani, M. G. , and Longo, L. C. , 1991, “ What Is Beautiful Is Good, But…: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype,” Psychol. Bull., 110(1), pp. 109–128. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Example concepts sketched by Participant N02ER to address the greenhouse grid design task

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Example concept assessment sheet completed by Participant E13WN

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Percentage of total ideas selected for male and female participants, categorized by idea ownership

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Percentage of total ideas selected for ideas that have low Goodness scores (<0.5), and high Goodness scores (>0.5), categorized by idea ownership

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