Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Creativity in design teams: the influence of personality traits and risk attitudes on creative concept selection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concept selection is recognized as a crucial component of the design process that largely involves informal group discussions within design teams. However, little is known about what factors affect the selection or filtering of creative ideas during this process. This is problematic because in order for innovation to occur, individuals must first identify and select the creative concepts developed in the early stages of design. However, prior research has shown that individuals tend to select conventional alternatives during this process due to the inherent risk associated with creative concepts. Therefore, the current study was developed to understand how personality traits, risk attitudes, and idea generation abilities impact the promotion or filtering of creative ideas in a team setting. The results from our empirical study with engineering students reveal that teams who have higher levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and tolerance for ambiguity are more prone to select novel concepts. In addition, the results revealed that the teams who generate creative ideas did not necessarily select creative ideas during concept selection. These results add to our understanding of team-based decision making during concept selection and allow us to provide guidelines for increasing the flow of creative ideas through this process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrell A, Gustafon R (1996) Innovation and creativity in work groups. In: Handbook of work group psychology. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 317–344

  • Amabile T (1996) Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayag Z, Ozdemir RG (2009) A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process. Comput Ind Eng 56:368–379. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer M, Oldham GR, Jacobsohn GC, Hollingshead AB (2007) The personality composition of teams and creativity: the moderating role of team creative confidence. J Creat Behav 42:255–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak G, Griffin A, Kahn KB (2009) Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. J Prod Innov Manage 26:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batey M, Furnham A (2006) Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 132:355–4329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell ST (2007) Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 92:595–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhofer H, Jansch J, Kloverdanz H (2005) An extensive and detailed view of the application of design methods and methodology in industry. Paper presented at the international conference on engineering design, Melbourne, Australia, August 15018

  • Borghans L, Heckman JJ, Golsteyn BHH, Meijers H (2009) Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J Eur Econ Assoc 7:649–658. doi:10.1162/jeea.2009.7.2-3.649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt DL, Hoyle C, Tumer IY, Dong A (2012) Risk attitudes in risk-based design: considering risk attitude using utility theory in risk-based design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 26:393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle PA, Yu L, Buchman AS, Laibson DI, Bennett DA (2011) Cognitive function is associated with risk aversion in community-based older persons. BMS Geriatr 11:53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle PA, Yu L, Buchman AS, Bennett DA (2012) Risk aversion is associated with decision making among community-based older persons. Front Psychol 3:205. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00205

  • Bradshaw SD, Stasson MF, Alexander D (1999) Shyness and group brainstorming: effects on productivity and perceptions of performance. North Am J Psychol 1:267–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho LM, Paulus PB (1995) The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. J Pers Soc Psychol 68:1071–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardin M-A, Kolfschoten GL, Frey DD, de Neufville R, de Weck OL, Geltner DM (2013) Empirical evaluation of procedures to generate flexibility in engineering systems and improve lifecycle performance. Res Eng Des 24:277–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Grieco D (2013) Individual creativity, ex-ante goals and financial incentives. Department of Economics, UCSB, UC Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Chulvi V, Gonzalez-Cruz MC, Mulet E, Aguilar-Zambrano J (2012) Influence of type of idea-generation method on the creativity of solutions. Res Eng Des 24:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa P, McCrea R (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Csermelv P, Lederman L (2003) Talent, science, and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities? Paper presented at the NATO advanced research workshop Budapest, Hungary, March 8–10

  • De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313:684–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman Glenview, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewett T (2006) Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. J Creat Behav 40:27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewett T (2007) Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Manag 37:197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong A, Mounarath R, Lovallo D (2012) The language of abduction in choosing innovation. Paper presented at the international conference on design creativity, Glasgow, UK, Sept 18–20

  • Dong A, Lovallo D, Mounarath R (2015) The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Des Stud 37:37–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne E (2000) Bridging the gap between industry and higher education: training academics to promote student teamwork. Innov Educ Train Int 27:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym CW, Wesner JW, Winner L (2003) Social dimensions of engineering designs: observations from mudd design workshop III. J Eng Educ 92:105–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson A, Roloff K (2009) Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In: Team effectiveness in complex organizations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches, vol 183–208. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY

  • El-Murad J, West DC (2003) Risk and creativity in advertising. J Market Manag 19:657–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck SBG, Eysenck HJ (1977) The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 16:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist GJ (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 2:290–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist GJ (2006) The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 273–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford CM, Gioia DA (2000) Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. J Manag 26:705–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey D, Herder P, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing D (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20:41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey DD et al (2010) Research in engineering design: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Res Eng Des 21:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman HH, Amoo T (1999) Rating the rating scales. J Market Manag 9:114–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Yazdanpanahi T (1995) Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personal Individ Differ 19:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genco N, Holtta-Otto K, Seepersad CC (2012) An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. J Eng Educ 101:60–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs G (1995) Assessing student centered courses. Center for Staff Development, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson LL, Shalley CE (2004) A little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. J Manag 30:453–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Goncalo JA, Staw BM (2006) Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 100:96–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambali A, Supuan SM, Ismail N, 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 4:198–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Han SD, Boyle PA, Arfanakis K, Fleischman DA, Yu L, Edmonds EC, Bennet DA (2012) Neural intrinsic connectivity networks associated with risk aversion in old age. Behav Brain Res 227:233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey S, Kou C-Y (2013) Collective engagement in creative tasks the role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Adm Sci Q 58:346–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelrigg GA (2010) Letter to the editor re “the pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory”. Res Eng Des 21:143–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath C, Tversky A (1991) Preferences and beliefs: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 2:5–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff E, Carlsson I, Smith G (2012) Handbook of organizational creativity. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard TJ, Culley SJ, Dekoninck E (2008) Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des Stud 29:160–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung C (2012) The effectiveness of cooperative learning. J Eng Educ 101:119–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs JF, van de Poel I, Osseweijer P (2014) Clarifying the debate on selection methods for engineering: arrow’s impossibility theorem, design performances, and information basis. Res Eng Des 25:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J (2014) Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: development of the IPIP-NEO-120. J Res Pers 51:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185

  • Kihuk S, Wiesner W (1998) The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams. J Eng Tech Manage 14:195–221

  • Kleiman P (2008) Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innov Educ Train Int 45:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein C, DeRouin R, Salas E (2006) Uncovering workplace interpersonal skills: a review, framework, and research agenda. Int Rev Ind Organ Psychol 21:79–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski AW, Webster DM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychol Rev 103:263–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsey JS, Clauss EF, Kurtoglu TT, Murphy JT, Wood KL, Markman AB (2011) An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. ASME J Mech Des 133(3):031008–031008-15. doi:10.1115/1.4003498

  • McCrae R (1987) Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:1258–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1998) A view of group composition through a group-theoretic lens. JAI, Greenwich, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed S, Angell LC (2003) Personality heterogeneity in teams: which differences make a difference for team performance. Small Group Res 34:651–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore E, Eckel C (2003) Measuring ambiguity aversion. Paper presented at the Economic Science Association Meetings, Barcelona, June 21–24

  • Mueller JS, Melwani S, Goncalo JA (2011) The bias against creativity: why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychol Sci 2011:0956797611421018

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford MD (2012) Handbook of organizational creativity. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson N, Soane E, Fenton-O’Creevy M, Willman P (2005) Personality and domain-specific risk taking. J Risk Res 8:157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikander JB, Liikkanen LA, Laakso M (2014) The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Des Stud 35:473–499. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okudan GE, Tauhid S (2008) Concept selection methods—a literature review from 1980 to 2008. Int J Des Eng 1:243–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Oman SK, Tumer IY, Wood K, Seepersad C (2013) A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Res Eng Des 24:65–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onarheim B, Christensen BT (2012) Distributed idea screening in stage-gate development processes. J Eng Des 23:660–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad Manag J 49:85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman VL, Paulus PB (2009) Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. J Creat Behav 43:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y (2010) My method is better! Res Eng Des 21:137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly RR, Lynn GS, Aronson ZH (2001) The role of personality in new product development team performance. J Eng Tech Manag 19:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Palmon R (2009) Problem identification and construction: what do we know, what is the future? Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 3:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzchel EF, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W (2006) Productivity is not enough: a comparison of interactive and nominal groups in idea generation and selection. J Exp Soc Psychol 42:244–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel E, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W (2010) The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. Br J Psychol 101:47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenson DL, Runco MA (1995) The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations. Creat Innov Manag 4:232–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2014) Ideas generated in conceptual design and their effects on creativity. Res Eng Des 25:185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah J, Vargas-Hernandez N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24:111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah J, Kulkarni S, Vargas-Hernandez N (2000) Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. J Mech Des 122:377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shai O, Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Subrahmanian E (2013) Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C-K theory. Res Eng Des 24:201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T, Thevenot H (2007) Using product dissection to integrate product family design research into the classroom and improve students’ understanding of platform commonality. Int J Eng Educ 23:120–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW, Lewis KE, Stone RB, Regli WC (2007) Using cyberinfrastructure to enhance product dissection in the classroom. Paper presented at the industrial engineering research conference, Nashville, TN, May 19–23

  • Sitkin SB, Pablo AL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad Manag Rev 17:9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter ES (1998) Models for construction innovation. J Constr Eng Manag 124:226–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech A, Drach-Zahavy A (2011) Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for innovation. J Manag 39:684–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorrentino R, Roney CJR (2000) The uncertain mind: individual differences in facing the unknown, vol 1. Psychology Press, Hove, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford L, Ng W, Moore R, Bard K (2010) Bolder, happier, smarter: the role of extraversion in positive mood and cognition. Pers Individ Diff 48:827–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel G, Rinne T, Fairweather J (2012) Personality, nations, and innovation: relationships between personality traits and national innovation scores. Cross Cult Res J Comp Soc Sci 46:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1991) An investment theory of creativity and its development. Hum Dev 24:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone NJ, Moroney WF, Wortham TB (2006) Recommendations for teaching team behavior to human factors/ergonomics students. Paper presented at the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, October 16–20

  • Toh CA, Miller SR (2014a) The impact of example modality and physical interactions on design creativity. J Mech Des 136. doi:10.1115/1.4027639

  • Toh CA, Miller SR (2014b) The role of individual risk attitudes on the selection of creative concepts in engineering design. In: ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp V007T07A027–V007T07A027

  • Toh CA, Miller SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Des Stud 38:111–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bossuyt DL, Dong A, Tumer IY, Carvalho L (2013) On measuring engineering risk attitudes. J Mech Des 135:121001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU (1999) Who’s afraid of a little risk? New evidence for general risk aversion. In: Edwards W, Shanteau J, Mellers BA, Schunn D (eds) Decision research from bayesian approaches to normative systems. Kluwer Academic Press, Norwell, MA, pp 53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU (2010) Risk attitude and preference, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cogn Sci 1:263–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak 15:263–290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside SP, Lynam DR (2000) The five factor model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Pers Individ Differ 30:669–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde DJ (1997) Using student preferences to guide design team composition. Paper presented at the design engineering technical conferences, Sacramento, CA, September 14–17

  • Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW (1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad Manag Rev 18:293–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang MC (2009) Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Res Eng Des 20:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenasni F, Besancon M, Lubart T (2008) Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: an empirical study. J Creat Behav 42:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM (2000) Personality and risk-taking: common biosocial factors. J Pers 68:999–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M (1993) A comparison of three structural models of personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:757–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Christine A. Toh

  2. School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Scarlett R. Miller

Authors
  1. Christine A. Toh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scarlett R. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scarlett R. Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toh, C.A., Miller, S.R. Creativity in design teams: the influence of personality traits and risk attitudes on creative concept selection. Res Eng Design 27, 73–89 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-015-0207-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-015-0207-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation