Images of users and products shown during design processes increase users willingness to use the design outcome

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 179-189

  Christensen, Bo T ^a  

^a Copenhagen Business School ^*  (Denmark)

Author keywords

Analogical transfer; Creative cognition; Creativity techniques; Mental simulation; Willingness to use

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SCIENCE; DESIGN PROCESS; DESIGN SOLUTIONS; DOMAIN PROPERTIES; END USERS; INCREMENTAL INNOVATION; MENTAL SIMULATION; PRACTICAL USE; RANDOM IMAGE;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 77952351837     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060410000041     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bailetti, A.,&Litva, P. (1995). Integrating customer requirments into product designs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 3-15.
2. Bennett, R.C., & Cooper, R.G. (1979). Beyond the marketing concept. Business Horizons 22, 76-83.
3. Beveridge, M., & Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving. Memory & Cognition 15, 230-237.
4. Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity & Innovation Management 13, 176-186.
5. Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2005). Favouring creativity in design projects: challenges and findings of experimental studies. In Studying Designers 05 (Gero, J.,&Bonnardel, N., Eds.), pp. 21-32. Sydney: University of Sydney.
6. Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies 20, 153-175.
7. Christensen, B.T.,&Schunn, C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35, 29-38.
8. Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2009a). Putting blinkers on a blind man. Providing cognitive support for creative processes with environmental cues. In Tools for Innovation (Markman, A.B., & Wood, K.L., Eds.), pp. 48-74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2009b). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23, 327-344.
10. Christensen, C., & Bower, J. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17, 197-218. (Pubitemid 126482610)
11. Christiaans, H., & Andel, J.V. (1993). The effects of examples on the use of knowledge in a student design activity: the case of the "flying Dutchman." Design Studies 14, 58-74.
12. Dahl, D.W., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G.J. (1999). The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research 36, 18-28.
13. Dahl, D.W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39, 47-60.
14. de Bono, E. (1975). The Uses of Lateral Thinking. New York: Harper&Row.
15. Dugosh, K.L., & Paulus, P.B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41, 313-320.
16. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in realworld laboratories. In The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E., Eds.), pp. 365-395. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The invivo/invitro approach to cognition: the case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5, 334-339.
18. Firestien, R.L. (1996). Leading on the Creative Edge. Gaining Competitive Advantage Through the Power of Creative Problem Solving. Colorado Springs, CO: Piñon Press.
19. Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1994). MAC/FAC: a model of similarity- based retrieval. Cognitive Science 19, 141-205.
20. Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In ACompanion to Cognitive Science (Bechtel, W., & Graham, G., Eds.), pp. 107-113. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21. Gentner, D. (2002). Psychology of mental models. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Smelser, N.J., & Bates, P.B., Eds.), pp. 9683-9687. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
22. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes (Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., & Vaid, J. Eds.), pp. 403-459. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J., & Forbus, K.D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524-575.
24. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12, 306-355.
26. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15, 1-38.
27. Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies 16, 189-209.
28. Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual analogy: a strategy for design reasoning and learning. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M., & Newstetter, W.C., Eds.), pp. 199-220. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29. Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., & Vollrath, D.A. (1997). The emerging conceptualisation of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121, 43-64.
30. Holyoak, K.J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition 15, 332-340.
31. Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist 52, 35-44.
32. Im, S., & Workman, J.P. Jr. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing 68, 114-132.
33. Jaarsveld, S., & van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from a design process: creative cognition inferred from intermediate products. Cognitive Science 29, 79-101.
34. Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12, 3-11.
35. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 313-331. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Judgement Under Uncertainty. Heuristics and Biases (Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A., Eds.), pp. 201-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kuipers, B. (1994). Qualitative Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22, 1-16.
40. MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wagner, C. (1994). Stimulating ideas through creativity software. Management Science 40, 1514-1532.
41. Marsh, R.L., Landau, J.D., & Hicks, J.L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Memory & Cognition 24, 669-680.
42. Marsh, R.L.,Ward, T.B., & Landau, J.D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory & Cognition 27, 94-105.
43. Mayer, R.E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In Handbook of Creativity (Sternberg, R.J., Ed.), pp. 449-460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Nersessian, N.J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In Cognitive Basis of Science (Carruthers, P., & Stich, S., Eds.), pp. 133-153. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, 535-544.
46. Norman, D.A., & Draper, S.W. (1986). User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Novick, L.R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14, 510-520.
48. Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination, 3rd rev. ed. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
49. Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18, 93-102.
50. Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1996). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Chichester: Wiley.
51. Ross, B.H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 13, 629-639.
52. Ross, B.H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 15, 456-468.
53. Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. New York: Wiley.
54. Simon, H.A., & Hayes, J.R. (1976). The understanding process: problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology 8, 165-190.
55. Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Schumacher, J.S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generations task. Memory & Cognition 21, 837-845.
56. Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.E. (2000). Product Design and Development, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
57. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
58. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 1-7. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology 27, 1-40.
60. Ward, T.B. (1995). Whats old about new ideas? In The Creative Cognition Approach (Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Finke, R.A., Eds.), pp. 157-178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Ward, T.B. (1998). Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: mental leaps versus mental hops. In Advances in Analogy Research: Integration of Theory and Data from the Cognitive, Computational, and Neural Sciences (Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B.N., Eds.). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University.
62. Ward, T.B., Patterson, M.J., Sifonis, C.M., Dodds, R.A., & Saunders, K.N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition 30, 199-216.