Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:56:52.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating Triple Process Theory in Design Protocols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

Sonia Vieira ,
U. Kannengiesser  and
M. Benedek
Sonia Vieira*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
U. Kannengiesser
Affiliation:
Johannes Kepler University, Austria
M. Benedek
Affiliation:
University of Graz, Austria
*
[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study presents a coding scheme for design protocols that is derived from Triple Process Theory postulating the existence of three categories of cognitive processes: spontaneous, deliberate, and metacognitive. We applied the coding scheme to think-aloud protocols of designers engaged in an open design task. Results show that all three types occur during designing. The scheme we propose has the potential to ground accounts of Triple Process Theory for design in empirical studies. We explore the relation between design sessions outcomes and shifts between cognitive processes.

Keywords

process analysismetacognitiondesign cognitiondesign theorydesign protocols
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 61 - 70
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Ackerman, R., and Thompson, V. A. (2017), “Meta-reasoning: Shedding meta-cognitive light on reasoning research”. In: Ball, L. J, & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, Psychology Press, pp. 1–15. 10.4324/9781315725697-1 Google Scholar
Ball, L. J., and Christensen, B. T. (2019), “Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects”, Design Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 35–59. 10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.003Google Scholar
Ball, L. J., and Christensen, B. T., (2009), “Analogical reasoning and mental simula- tion in design: Two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution”, Design Studies, Vol.30, pp. 169–186. 10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.005Google Scholar
Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., et al. . (2018), “Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 115, No. 5, pp. 1087–1092. 10.1073/pnas.1713532115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaty, R.E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P.J., & Schacter, D.L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 87–95. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedek, M., and Fink, A. (2019). “Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: The role of memory, attention, and cognitive control”, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116–122. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedek, M. and Jauk, E. (2018), “Spontaneous and controlled processes in creative cognition”, In: K., Christoph. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Spontaneous Thought, Oxford University Press, pp. 285–298. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464745.013.22Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. (1993), Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cash, P., and Maier, A., (2021), “Understanding representation: Contrasting gesture and sketching in design through dual-process theory”, Design Studies, Vol. 73, 100992. 10.1016/j.destud.2021.100992Google Scholar
Chrysikou, E., Weber, M., Thompson-Schill, S., (2014), A Matched Filter Hypothesis for Cognitive Control, Neuropsychologia, Vol. 62, pp. 341–355. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.10.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2018), “Fluctuating epistemic uncertainty in a design team as a metacognitive driver for creative cognitive processes”, CoDesign, Vol. 14, pp. 133–152. 10.1080/15710882.2017.1402060Google Scholar
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative & Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2019), “Creativity and fixation in the real world: A literature review of case study research”, Design Studies, Vol. 64, pp. 154–168. 10.1016/j.destud.2019.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darke, J. (1979). “The primary generator and the design process”, Design Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W. (2021). “On Dual- and Single-Process Models of Thinking.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1412–1427. 10.1177/1745691620964172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijksterhuis, A., and Meurs, T. (2006), “Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought”, Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, Vol. 15, N0. 1, pp. 135–146. 10.1016/j.concog.2005.04.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downar, J., Crawley, A., Mikulis, D., Davis, K., (2000), “A multimodal cortical network for the detection of changes in the sensory environment”, Nature Neuroscience, Vol.3, No. 3, pp. 277–283. 10.1038/72991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. (2009), “How many dual-process theories do we need: One, two or many?”, In: Evans, J. and Stanovich, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, Oxford University Press, pp. 31–54. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0002Google Scholar
Evans, J. (2018), “Dual-process theory: Perspectives and Problems”, In: De Neys, w. (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0, Routledge, London, pp. 137–155.Google Scholar
Evans, J. (2019), “Reflections on reflection: the nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning”, Thinking and Reasoning, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 383–415. 10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071Google Scholar
Evans, J., and Over, D. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J., and Stanovich, K., (2013a), “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 223–241. 10.1177/1745691612460685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J., and Stanovich, K., (2013b), “Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: A reply to comments”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 263–271. 10.1177/1745691613483774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, R., Ward, T., and Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition. Theory, research and applications. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finke, R., (1996). “Creative insight and preinventive forms”. In: Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. B. (Ed's), The Nature of Insight, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1976), “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving”, In: Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 231–236.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J.L. (2003), “The measurement of interrater agreement”. In: Joseph, L. Fleiss, Bruce Levin, and Myunghee, Cho Paik (Eds), Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, (3rd Edition), John Wiley & Sons, London. 10.1002/0471445428.ch18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabora, L., and Ranjan, A. (2013), “How insight emerges in a distributed, content-addressable memory”, In: Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., and Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Neuroscience of creativity, Boston Review, pp. 19–43. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019583.003.0002Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S., Wynn, V., (2007), “Divergent thinking: strategies for generating alternative uses for familiar objects”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 611–625. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goel, V. (2022). Reason and Less. Pursuing Food, Sex, and Politics. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2016), “Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Creative Design”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 115–122. 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497Google Scholar
Gonçalves, M., and Cash, P., (2021). “The life cycle of creative ideas: Towards a dual-process theory of ideation”, Design Studies, Vol. 72, 100988. 10.1016/j.destud.2020.100988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A., and Weil, B. (2009), “C-K design theory: An advanced formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 181–192. 10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4.Google Scholar
Hay, L., Cash, P. and McKilligan, S. (2020), “The Future of Design Cognition Analysis”, Design Science, Vol. 6, e20. 10.1017/dsj.2020.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., (2003), “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No 5, 1449–1475. https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero. J. S. (2019), “Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman's dual-system theory in design”, Design Science, Vol. 5 (e10). 10.1017/dsj.2019.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Kim, Y, Lee, H., Park, J. (2007), “An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: Limited Commitment Mode control strategy”, Design Studies, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 585–604. 10.1016/j.destud.2007.04.006Google Scholar
Koriat, A., and Levy-Sadot, R. (1999), “Processes underlying metacognitive judgments: Information-based and experience-based monitoring of one's own knowledge”, In: Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, The Guilford Press, pp. 483–502.Google Scholar
Kruger, C., Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 527–548. 10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J., and Koch, G. (1977). “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data”, Biometrics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menon, V., (2011), “Large-scale brain networks and psychopathology: a unifying triple network model”, Trends Cogn Sci, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 483–506. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menon, V., and Uddin, L., (2010), “Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function”, Brain Struct Funct., Vol. 214, pp. 655–667. 10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F. & Baas, M. (2010), “The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence”, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 34–77. 10.1080/10463281003765323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattrini, G., Pini, L., Pievani, M., Magnia, L., Lanfredi, M., et al. . (2019), “Abnormalities in functional connectivity in borderline personality disorder: Correlations with metacognition and emotion dysregulation”. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, Vol. 283, 118–124. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2018.12.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roebers, C. M., (2017), “Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation”, Developmental Review, Vol. 45, pp. 31–51. 10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, A. (1999), “Stuckness in the design studio”, Design Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 195–209. 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00034-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992), “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1956). “Rational choice and the structure of the environment”, Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp-129-138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloman, S. A. (1996). “The empirical case for two systems of reasoning”, Psychol. Bull., Vol. 119, pp. 3–22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, A., and Chrisley, R. L., (2003), “Virtual machines and consciousness”, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4-5, pp. 133–172.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2005), “The complexity of cognition: Tractability arguments for massive modularity”, In: Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., and Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2004). The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226771199.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2009), “Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory?”, In: Evans, J. S. B. T. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, Oxford University Press, pp. 55–88. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A. and Gabora, L. (2015), “The shifting sands of creative thinking: connections to dual process theory”, Thinking & Reasoning Vol. 21, No. 1, 40–60. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.885464Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A. (2009), “Dual-process theories: a metacognitive perspective”, In: Evans, J. S. B. T. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, Oxford University Press, pp. 171–196. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008Google Scholar
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., and Matthews, J. (2009), “Divergent thinking ability is related to faster relatedness judgments”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 3, N0. 2, pp. 99–103. 10.1037/a0013106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, S., Gero, J., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C., et al. . (2020), “The Neurophysiological Activations of Mechanical Engineers and Industrial Designers while Designing and Problem-Solving”, Design Science , Vol. 6 (e26). 10.1017/dsj.2020.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, S., Benedek, M., Gero, J., Li, S., Cascini, G. (2022), “Brain Activity in Constrained and Open Design: The Effect of Gender on Frequency Bands”, Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. Vol. 36 (e6). 10.1017/S0890060421000202Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., and Kolomyts, Y., (2010)., “Cognition and creativity”, In: Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, W. (1989), “Understanding spontaneous speech”, Proceedings of the Speech and Natural Language Workshop, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 21–23.Google Scholar
Wason, P., and Evans, J., (1974). “Dual processes in reasoning?”, Cognition, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 141–154. 10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1Google Scholar