Skip to main content

The Personal Trait Myth: A Comparative Analysis of the Innovation Impact of Design Thinking Tools and Personal Traits

  • 6007 Accesses

Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Design thinking asserts that individuals and teams have the ability to build their innovative capacity through various tools and methods no matter their predispositions to creativity and innovation. The contexts of design thinking attempt to alter design process towards more innovative ideas. This work attempts to experimentally disentangle the impact of disposition and situation during design activity. We present a variety of design contexts intended to be tested against dispositional factors during an experimental design task. We then present a pilot study exploring how process-priming impacts design process during a problem-solving task and an open-ended design task. Our preliminary results suggest that short process-priming activities may not be the most effective means for altering design process. Rather, more integrated contextual interventions may be better candidates for impacting design process and would be interesting test variables for future studies.

Keywords

  • Cognitive Load
  • Design Task
  • Cognitive Style
  • Situational Factor
  • Design Outcome

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_4
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-06823-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    This overall judgment was not a cumulative or mean score of the other categories, but rather a separate, holistic measure.

  2. 2.

    While Mechanical Engineering Design may seem like a highly analytical field, the program at Stanford is highly enveloped in “design thinking.”

References

  • Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr Gen Appl 70(9):1–70

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86(6):84

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley JM, Batson CD (1973) “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: a study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 27(1):100–108. doi:10.1037/h0034449

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Doorley S, Witthoft S (2012) Make space: how to set the stage for creative collaboration. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J, Schwarz M, Schwartz DL, Klemmer SR (2010) Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 17(4):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow S, Fortuna J, Schwartz D, Altringer B, Schwartz D, Klemmer S (2011) Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Eris Ö (2004) Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design: from basic principles to applications. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith RE (1986) Personality and adaptive-innovative problem solving. J Soc Behav Pers 1(1):95–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirton M (1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J Appl Psychol 61(5):622–629. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kress GL, Schar M (2012) Teamology‚ the art and science of design team formation. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–209

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger C, Cross N (2006) Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Des Stud 27(5):527–548

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lang PJ (1980) Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications. In: Sidowski JB, Johnson JH, Williams TA (eds) Technology in mental health care delivery systems. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 119–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Latane B, Darley JM (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. J Pers Soc Psychol 10(3):215–221. doi:10.1037/h0026570

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson BR (1979) Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics 22(1):59–68

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta R, Zhu R (2009) Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science 323(5918):1226–1229

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. North Holland Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker JA, Beghetto RA, Dow GT (2004) Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ Psychol 39(2):83–96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In: Leonard B (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 10. Academic, New York, pp 173–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross L, Nisbett RE (1991) The person and the situation. Temple, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott SG, Bruce RA (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad Manag J 37(3):580–607

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ (1985) Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Treffinger DJ, Isaksen SG, Dorval KB (1994) Creative problem solving: an overview. In: Runco MA (ed) Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 223–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley AW (2009) Means vs. ends: implications of process and outcome focus for team adaptation and performance. Organ Sci 20(3):500–515

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolas Martelaro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martelaro, N., Ganguly, S., Steinert, M., Jung, M. (2015). The Personal Trait Myth: A Comparative Analysis of the Innovation Impact of Design Thinking Tools and Personal Traits. In: Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_4

Download citation