Building a Social-Cognitive Framework for Design: Personality and Design Self-efficacy Effects on Pro-design Behaviors

  • Hristina Milojevic
  • Yan JinEmail author
Conference paper


The purpose of this work is to offer a framework that analogously considers factors significant for engineering design and industrial organization, borrowing from literature in domains of cognition and social theories. We conducted two studies: at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and University of Southern California, that allowed us to investigate personal, environmental, cognitive, and behavioral traits and processes, as affected by design self-efficacy, in engineering designers and non-technical designers in training. Through a social-cognitive framework for design, we explore the kind of influence that occurs among person, environment, and behavior reciprocally. We found that the rational mode of thinking was particularly highly associated with design self-efficacy, and intuitive mode particularly insufficiently associated with design self-efficacy. Design self-efficacy was further positively associated with big five personality conscientiousness, and highly negatively associated with neuroticism, where some significance is seen in specific correlations with design self-efficacy in personality domains. The comprehensive findings call for a repetition study and further theoretical considerations for findings in the framework’s domain.


  1. 1.
    Baird FM (2000) An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls-Royce. Des Stud 21(4):333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A (1999) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian J Soc Psychol 2(1):21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):1–26MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandura A (2005) The evolution of social cognitive theory. In: Smith KG (ed) Great minds in management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–35Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechtoldt MN (2010) Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Interpersonal Relat Group Processes 99(4):622–637Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carberry AR (2010) Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. J Eng Educ 99(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi JN (2011) Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Res J 16(2 & 3):187–199Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chulisp P, Jin Y (2006) Impact of mental iteration on concept generation. J Mech Des 128:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Dreu CK (2008) Motivated information processing in group judgement and decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 12(1):22–49Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dennen VP (2007) The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. Florida State University, Florida, pp 426–439Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diamond M (2002) Sex and gender are different: sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 7(3):320–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Driscoll MP (1994) Psychology of learning. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epstein S (2003) Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Milton MJ (ed) Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 159–184Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans JS (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(3):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg LR (1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol 48(1):26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grant AM (2011) The necessity of others is the mother of intention: intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Acad Manage J 54(1):73–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jin Y, Benami O (2010) Creative patterns and stimulation in conceptual design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24(2):191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kudrowitz BM (2010) The play pyramid: a play classification and ideation tool for toy. Int J Art Technol 3(1):36–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lamm CB (2007) The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. J Cogn Neurosci 19(1):42–58MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Massachusetts Department of Education (2001/2006) Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Massachusetts Department of Education, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milojevic HG (2016) Influence of thinking style on design creativity. In: The fourth international conference on design creativity. The Design Society, Atlanda, GAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moore DJ (2014) A dual-process analysis of design idea generation. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering, ASMEGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pacini R, Epstein S (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perry-Smith JE (2003) The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social network perspective. Acad Manage Rev 28(1):89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sauder J, Jin Y (2016) A qualitative study of collaborative stimulation in group design thinking. Des Sci 2(4):1–25Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schaub M, Tokar DM (2005) The role of personality and learning experiences in social cognitive career theory. J Vocat Behav 66:304–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shah JM (2012) Applied tests of design skills—Part I: divergent thinking. J Mech Des 1–10Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shuell TJ (1986) Cognitive conceptions of learning. Rev Educ Res 56(4):411–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silvia JP-P (2012) Assessing creativity with self-report scales: a review and empirical evaluation. Univeristy of Nebraska Omaha Digital Commons@UNOGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stanovich KE (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate. Behav Brain Sci 23(5):645–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weinstein C, Mayer RE (1986) The teaching of learning strategies. In: Wittrock ME (ed) Handbook of research on teaching. Macmillan, New York, pp 315–327Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Witteman CV (2009) Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. Eur J Psychol Assess 25(1):39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zimmerman BJ (1990) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educ Psychol 25(1):3–17MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations