Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T11:10:25.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study on the effects of example familiarity and modality on design fixation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Vimal Viswanathan ,
Megan Tomko  and
Julie Linsey
Vimal Viswanathan*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama, USA
Megan Tomko
Affiliation:
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Julie Linsey
Affiliation:
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Vimal Viswanathan, Mechanical Engineering Department, Tuskegee University, 1200 West Montgomery Street, Tuskegee, AL 36088, USA. E-mail: vviswanathan@mytu.tuskegee.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Design fixation is a factor that negatively influences the generation of novel design concepts (Jansson & Smith, 1991). When designers fixate, they tend to reproduce example features or features from their initial ideas. In order to mitigate design fixation, it is crucial to identify the factors that influence the extent of design fixation. This paper investigates two such factors: the modality of examples and the familiarity of designers with the example features. To investigate this, an experiment is conducted with mechanical engineering students who were asked to generate ideas to solve a peanut sheller design problem. The students generated ideas in five different experimental conditions: control, where no example was given; the first example given in a sketch form; the first example given as a nonfunctional prototype; a second example in sketch form; and the second example in a working prototype form. The first example was a nonfeasible solution, but it contained several features familiar to the participants. The second example was a feasible solution, but it contained less familiar features. In order to understand the extent of fixation triggered by the examples, three metrics were utilized to compare across the experimental conditions: the quantity of nonredundant ideas generated by the participants, the presence of example features in their solutions, and their fixation to the example's energy source. The results showed that in the case of the familiar example, the example modality did play an important role in the extent of design fixation. Across the examples, it was found that the first example containing several familiar features caused more fixation than the second one. Overall, this paper shows that the modality in which the example was communicated and the presence of familiar features in an example influenced the fixation caused by those examples.

Keywords

Design CreativityDesign FixationExample FamiliarityIdea GenerationModality
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Issue 2: Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'14) , May 2016 , pp. 171 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(3), 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M.J. (2001). Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(3), 626–639.Google Scholar
Arnon, R., & Kreitler, S. (1984). Effects of meaning training on overcoming functional fixedness. Current Psychology 3(4), 11–24.Google Scholar
Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research 29(4), 495–526.Google Scholar
Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2011). The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 130–146.Google Scholar
Cardoso, C., Badke-Schaub, P., & Luz, A. (2009). Design fixation on non-verbal stimuli: the influence of simple vs. rich pictorial information on design problem-solving. Proc. ASME 2009 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 995–1002. San Diego, CA: ASME.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2005). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: the case of engineering design. Creative Cognition: Analogy and Incubation 35(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Chrysikou, E.G., & Weisberg, R.W. (2005). Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(5), 1134–1148.Google Scholar
Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing Quantitative Psychological Research: From Design to Report. East Sussex: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82(6), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coskun, H., Paulus, P.B., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J.J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea-generating groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4(4), 307.Google Scholar
Dugosh, L.K., & Paulus, P.B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41(3), 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind's eye: sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo 23(1), 117–126.Google Scholar
Full Belly Project. (2011). Accessed at http://www.thefullbellyproject.org/ on January 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Fu, K., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2010). Design team convergence: the influence of example solution quality. Journal of Mechanical Design 132(11), 111005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1989). Problem representation versus domain of solution in architectural design teaching. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 6(3), 204–215.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4(2), 123–143.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2007). To see eye to eye: the role of visual representations in building shared mental models in design teams. CoDesign 3(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies 27(5), 549–569.Google Scholar
Good, P.I. (2000). Permutation Tests. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, R., Joshi, S., & Summers, J.D. (2012). A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations. Journal of Engineering Design 23(6), 443–468.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., & McAdams, D.A. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13(2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D., & Smith, S. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
Jonson, B. (2002). Sketching now. International Journal of Art & Design Education 21(3), 246–253.Google Scholar
Kiriyama, T., & Yamamoto, T. (1998). Strategic knowledge acquisition: a case study of learning through prototyping. Knowledge-Based Systems 11(7–8), 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J., Clauss, E.F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J.T., Wood, K.L., & Markman, A.B. (2011). An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. ASME Transactions: Journal of Mechanical Design 133(3), 031008.Google Scholar
Linsey, J., Green, M.G., Murphy, J., Wood, K.L., & Markman, A.B. (2005). Collaborating to success: an experimental study of group idea generation techniques. Proc. ASME IDETC—Design Theory and Methodology, pp. 24–28. Long Beach, CA: ASME.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K.L., & Schunn, C. (2010). A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design 132(4), 041003.Google Scholar
Maier, N.R.F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 12(2), 181.Google Scholar
Matlin, M.W. (2005). Cognition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation relies on the obscure a key to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixedness. Psychological Science 23(3), 215–218.Google Scholar
Moreno, D.P., Yang, M.C., Hernández, A.A., Linsey, J.S., & Wood, K.L. (2015). A step beyond to overcome design fixation: a design-by-analogy approach. Proc. Design Computing and Cognition'14, pp. 607–624. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2003). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18(1), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perttula, M.K., & Liikkanen, L.A. (2006). Structural tendencies and exposure effects in design idea generation. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Philadelphia, PA: ASME.Google Scholar
Purcell, A., & Gero, J. (1992). Effects of examples on the results of a design activity. Knowledge-Based Systems 5(1), 82–91.Google Scholar
Purcell, A.T., & Gero, J.S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies 17(4), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Kulkarni, S.V., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000). Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Schumacher, J.S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition 21(6), 837–845.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013 a). Design fixation and its mitigation: a study on the role of expertise. ASME Transactions: Journal of Mechanical Design 135(5), 051008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013 b). Examining design fixation in engineering idea generation: the role of example modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1(2), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013 c). Role of sunk cost in engineering idea generation: an experimental investigation. ASME Transactions: Journal of Mechanical Design 135(12), 121002.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, V.K., & Linsey, J. (2012). Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. ASME Transactions: Journal of Mechanical Design 134(9), 091004.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, V.K., & Linsey, J.S. (2010). Physical models in idea generation: hindrance or help? Proc. ASME 2010 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 329–339, Montreal, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Voss, J.F., Vesonder, G.T., & Spilich, G.J. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19(6), 651–667.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition 26(4), 716–730.Google Scholar
Youmans, R.J. (2011). The effects of physical prototyping and group work on the reduction of design fixation. Design Studies 32(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar