||The Influence of DwI Card on Behavior Design Ideation in Individuals
||Department of Industrial Design
行為設計的執行不僅需要有了解行為策略的人文心理背景人士，也要有能夠將 此類行為策略轉化為功能、系統或是產品的設計背景人士，更需要有能將設計結果 實際去審核、執行的科技專業技術人士。意圖設計圖卡是為行為設計而發展出的設 計發想工具，其集合許多領域的知識用於促進行為改變的設計。本研究將此圖卡中 文化，並了解不同領域(設計、科技與心理背景)的人在原始概念發想上的能力是 否一致;以及他們是否能透過使用意圖設計圖卡來激發出更多的行為設計設計概 念，並達到創意發想能力一致。本實驗初期結果發現:1). 設計背景與心理背景的實 驗參與者在原始設計概念產出數量上無顯著差異，但設計背景相較於科技背景的人 顯著產出較多的概念數量;2). 意圖設計圖卡確實能夠讓設計概念產出數量，甚至是 面對遠本已經靈感枯竭的題目，在使用意圖設計圖卡後還能夠再想出比原本更多的 概念;3). 意圖設計圖卡亦能幫助概念發想的效率，但科技背景的實驗參與者除外; 4)雖然意圖設計圖卡均讓三個背景的實驗參與者都能繼續產出更多的想法，但卻讓 科技背景的實驗參與者與其他兩背景的人在數量與效率的差距拉更大了。本研究結 合實證與訪談結果發現意圖設計的確是有效的行為設計概念發想工具，但若要平衡 跨領域設計團隊的構想產出能力，建議需要把原本設計給設計人的意圖設計工具為 科技人做針對性的調整。
The implementation of behavioral design requires not only people in humanity and psychological background to apply behavioral strategy in design, but also people in design background to turn behavioral strategy into function and actual products, and also people in technology background to make execution and evaluation. Design-with-Intent card, which gather knowledge in many areas to promote behavioral change design, is an ideation tools developed for generating more behavioral design concepts. In this study, we translate this card into Chinese and trying to understand whether there is a difference between people in different background (design, technology, and humanity background) in the ability of ideation; and whether they can use the design-with-Intent card to generate more behavior design concept then achieve the same result on the output of ideation. The results of the initial experiment found that: 1). There is no significant difference between participants in design and humanity background in the number of original ideas, but people in design background generate much more ideas than people in technology background; 2). Design-with-Intent card can be helpful for generating more ideas, even face the questions that that once has been given up already, people can come up with much more ideas than before while using it; 3).Design-with-Intent cards is helpful for stimulating rate of ideation, except for the people in technology background; 4) Although Design-with-Intent card is helpful for people in all the different background to produce more ideas, it also makes the gap between people in technology background and people in other two kinds of background get widened. In this study, we combined with the results of the empirical and interviews and found that Design with Intent is indeed an effective tool for ideation of behavior design. However, to balance the interdisciplinary team members’ ideation ability, it is recommended that we need to make adjustment to the Design-with-Intent tools for people in technology background.
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation and Purpose 1
1.3 Research Structure 2
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 3
2.1 Brainstorming 3
2.2 Interdisciplinary Teamwork and Discipline Difference 4
2.2.1 Interdisciplinary Teamwork 4
2.2.2 Discipline Difference 5
2.3 Creativity and Ideation Tools 7
2.3.1 Creativity 7
2.3.2 Ideation Tools 8
2.4 Persuade Technology and Behavior Change Design 8
2.4.1 Persuasive Technology 8
2.4.2 Behavior Change Design and Design with Intent 10
2.5 Conclusion 10
CHAPTER 3 Research Methods 12
3.1 Participants 12
3.2 Experiment Materials 12
3.3 Experiment Design 13
3.4 Experiment Procedure 14
3.5 Experiment Hypothesis 15
CHAPTER 4 Experiment Results 18
4.1 The Number of Ideas 18
4.2 Rate of Ideation 21
CHAPTER 5 Discussion 23
CHAPTER 6 Conclusion and Suggestion 26
CHAPTER 7 Reference 28
Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 122(1), 92-99.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social psychology of creativity.": Westview press.
Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1141-1152.
Baranowski, T., Buday, R., Thompson, D. I., & Baranowski, J. (2008). Playing for real: video games and stories for health-related behavior change. American journal of preventive medicine, 34(1), 74-82. e10.
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70.
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity research journal, 22(1), 90-97.
Birdi, K. S. (2005). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(2), 102-111.
Borchers, J. O. (2001). A pattern approach to interaction design. Ai & Society, 15(4), 359-376.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas1. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., & Landay, J. A. (2009). Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Dean, D. L., Hender, J. M., Rodgers, T. L., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646-699.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 497.
Fogg, B. (2008). Mass interpersonal persuasion: An early view of a new phenomenon Persuasive Technology (pp. 23-34): Springer.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 5.
Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (1992). Disciplinary Differences: Instructional Goals and Activities, Measures of Student Performance, and Student Ratings of Instruction.
Garland, I., Teles, L., & Wang, X. (1999). Fostering creativity through cross-disciplinary collaboration in an online dance course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Unpacking the cross‐level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 203-222.
Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in experimental social psychology, 8, 45-99.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Creativity in innovative projects: How teamwork matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1), 148-166.
Jablokow, K., Teerlink, W., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Silk, E., & Wehr, C. (2015). Ideation Variety in Mechanical Design: Examining the Effects of Cognitive Style and Design Heuristics. Paper presented at the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
Kim, H., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2008). Persuasive design of destination web sites: An analysis of first impression. Journal of Travel research.
Kudrowitz, B. M., & Wallace, D. R. (2009). The play pyramid: A play classification and ideation tool for toy design. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 3(1), 36-56.
Lawson, B. R. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1), 59-68.
Leathard, A. (1994). Going inter-professional: Working together for health and welfare: Psychology Press.
Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American psychologist, 43(6), 431.
Lockton, D. (2013). Design with intent: a design pattern toolkit for environmental and social behaviour change. Brunel University School of Engineering and Design PhD Theses.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. (2008). Design with intent: Persuasive technology in a wider context Persuasive technology (pp. 274-278): Springer.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2009). Choice architecture and design with intent.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2010). The Design with Intent Method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied ergonomics, 41(3), 382-392.
Lucero, A., & Arrasvuori, J. (2010). PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American psychologist, 17(7), 484.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of management review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and applied social psychology, 12(1), 3-23.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination.
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of" brainstorming" instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171.
Pauhus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78-89.
Prochaska, J. O. (2013). Transtheoretical model of behavior change Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 1997-2000): Springer.
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2006). Knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in bionanotechnology. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Conference, Technology Transfer Society: Next Generation Innovation: New Approaches and Policy Designs.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244-251.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287-306.
Siangliulue, P., Arnold, K. C., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2015). Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of management, 20(2), 503-530.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Personnel Press, Incorporated.
Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., & Gandhi, M. P. (2006). Chick clique: persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise. Paper presented at the CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
Van De, A., & Delbecq, A. L. (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 203-212.
Ye, T., & Robert, L. (2016). Does Collectivism Inhibit Individual Creativity? The Effects of Collectivism and Perceived Diversity on Individual Creativity and Satisfaction in Virtual Ideation Teams.
Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2014). Deconstructing gamification: evaluating the effectiveness of continuous measurement, virtual rewards, and social comparison for promoting physical activity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1705-1719.