Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling the Dynamics of Influence on Individual Thinking During Idea Generation in Co-design Teams

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition’20

  • 658 Accesses

Abstract

Social influence is not evenly distributed in teams. Some individuals, referred to here as influencers, become more influential than others. Consequentially, these influencers play a significant role in shaping project performance. The current work simulates the presence of influencers during idea generation in co-design teams to better understand emergent socio-cognitive phenomena. Besides providing, a novel approach for modelling learning in concept generation the model highlights the results related to individual cognition during idea generation. Idea quality and exploration of design space are affected by the presence of influencers in design teams. Teams with no well-defined influencers produce solutions with high general exploration but less quality. In contrast, the agents in the teams with only one influencer produce solutions high quality than those teams with no influencers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N (2011) Benefits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Des 5:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kleinsmann M, Valkenburg R (2008) Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Des Stud 29:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becattini N, Cascini G, O’Hare JA, Morosi F (2019) Extracting and analysing design process data from log files of ICT supported co-creative sessions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft

    Google Scholar 

  4. Singh H, Cascini G, Casakin H, Singh V (2019) A computational framework for exploring the socio-cognitive features of teams and their influence on design outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7280–7287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abar S, Theodoropoulos GK, Lemarinier P, O’Hare GMP (2017) Agent based modelling and simulation tools: a review of the state-of-art software. Comput Sci Rev 24:13–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Salas E, Guthrie JW, Wilson‐Donnelly KA, Priest HA, Burke CS (2005) Modeling team performance: the basic ingredients and research needs. In: Organizational Simulation. Wiley Hoboken, NJ, pp 185−228

    Google Scholar 

  8. McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2017) Optimizing design teams based on problem properties computational team simulations and an applied empirical test. J Mech Des 139:041101-1–041101-12

    Google Scholar 

  9. McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2015) Lifting the veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model. Des Stud 40:119–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2004) Modelling expertise of temporary design teams. J Des Res 4:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  11. Perišić MM, Štorga M, Gero JS (2018) Exploring the effect of experience on team behavior: a computational approach. In: Design Computing and Cognition DCC’18, Lecco, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, Wholey D (2000) Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81:226–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lapp S, Jablokow K, McComb C (2019) KABOOM: an agent based model for simulating cognitive styles in team problem solving. Des Sci 4:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh V, Dong A, Gero JS (2011) How important is team structure to team performance? In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11. Technical University of Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  15. Singh, V (2009) Computational studies on the role of social learning in the formation of team mental models. Doctor of Philosophy thesis. Design Lab Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schreiber C, Singh S, Carley KM (2004) Construct – a multi-agent network model for the co-evolution of agents and socio-cultural environments. CASOS – Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    Google Scholar 

  17. McComb C (2016) Designing the Characteristics of Design Teams via Cognitively Inspired Computational Modeling. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  18. Myers DG (1982) Polarizing Effects of Social Interaction. Group Decision Making. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Akers RL, Krohn MD, Lanza-Kaduce L, Radosevich M (1979) Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. Am Sociol Rev 44:636–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown R, Pehrson S (2019) Innovation and changes in groups: minority Influence. Group Process: Dyn Between Groups 3:85–100

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pei S, Morone F, Makse HA (2018) Theories for influencer identification in complex networks. In: Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems. Springer, pp. 125–148

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84:191–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25:54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Costa AC (2003) Work team trust and effectiveness. Pers Rev 32:605–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mui L, Mojdeh M, Halberstadt A (2002) A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stempfle J, Badke-Schaub P (2002) Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Des Stud 23:473–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goucher-Lambert K, Moss J, Cagan J (2019) A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli, understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli. Des Stud 60:1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oberauer K, Lewandowsky S (2008) Forgetting in immediate serial recall: decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychol Rev 115:544–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Murdock BB (1962) The serial position effect of free recall. J Exp Psychol 64:482–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Banaji RM (1986) Affect and memory: an experimental investigation. The Ohio State University

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gentner D (1989) Analogical Learning. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Novice versus Expert Learning. How People Learn, September 2010. https://serc.carleton.edu/econ/quantitative_writing/noviceVexpert.html

  34. Wimmer EG, Shohamy D (2017) Preference by association: how memory mechanisms in the hippocampus bias decisions. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York, pp 270–273

    Google Scholar 

  35. Singh H, Cascini G, Mccomb C (2020) Analyzing the effect of self-efficacy and influencers on design team performance. In: 16th International Design Conference DESIGN 2020, Dubrovnik, Croatia

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shah JJ, Smith SM, Vargas-Hernandez N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24:111–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22:425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leibowitz N, Baum B, Enden G, Karniel A (2010) The exponential learning equation as a function of successful trials results in sigmoid performance. J Math Psychol 54:338–340

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Agars MD, Kaufman JC, Locke TR (2008) Social influence and creativity in organizations: a multi-level lens for theory, research, and practice. In: Multi-Level Issues in Creativity and Innovation (Research in Multi-Level Issues, vol 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 3-61

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tsenn J, Atilola O, McAdams DA, Linsey JS (2014) The effects of time and incubation on design concept generation. Des Stud 35:500–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Paulus PB, Dzindolet MT (1993) Social influence processes in group brainstorming. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:575–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dugosh KL, Paulus PB (2005) Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. J Exp Soc Psychol 41:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paulus PB (2000) Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Appl Psychol: Int Rev 49:237–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Harshika Singh & Gaetano Cascini

  2. Carnegie Mellon University , Pittsburgh , USA

    Christopher McComb

Authors
  1. Harshika Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher McComb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gaetano Cascini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harshika Singh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and School of Architecture, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA

    John S. Gero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Singh, H., McComb, C., Cascini, G. (2022). Modelling the Dynamics of Influence on Individual Thinking During Idea Generation in Co-design Teams. In: Gero, J.S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition’20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90625-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90625-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90624-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90625-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation