No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Does empathy lead to creativity? A simulation-based investigation on the role of team trait empathy on nominal group concept generation and early concept screening
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 September 2023
Abstract
Research on empathy has been surging in popularity in the engineering design community since empathy is known to help designers develop a deeper understanding of the users’ needs. Because of this, the design community has become more invested in devising and assessing empathic design activities. However, research on empathy has been primarily limited to individuals, meaning we do not know how it impacts team performance, particularly in the concept generation and selection stages of the design process. Specifically, it is unknown how the empathic composition of teams, defined here as the average (elevation) and standard deviation (diversity) of team members’ empathy, would impact design outcomes during nominal group concept generation and early concept screening. Therefore, the goal of the current study is to investigate the impact of team empathy on nominal group concept generation and early concept screening in an engineering design student project. This was accomplished through a computational simulation of 13,482 teams of non-interacting brainstorming individuals generated by a statistical bootstrapping technique. This simulation drew upon a design repository of 806 ideas generated by first-year engineering students. The main findings from the study indicated that the impact of the elevation and diversity of different components of team empathy varied depending upon the specific design outcome (number of ideas, overall creativity, elegance, usefulness, uniqueness) and design stage (concept generation and concept screening). The results from this study can be used to guide team formation in engineering design.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Alzayed, MA (2019) An exploration of the role of student empathy in engineering design education. Paper presented at the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Cincinnati, Ohio.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzayed, MK (2020) An Exploration of the Role of Empathy in Engineering Design Education. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Alzayed, MA, McComb, C, Hunter, ST and Miller, S (2018) Helping teams expand the breadth of their solution space through product dissection: a simulation based investigation. Paper presented at the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conference, 15th International Conference on Design Education (DEC), Quebec City, Canada.Google Scholar
Alzayed, MA, McComb, C, Hunter, ST and Miller, SR (2019) Expanding the solution space in engineering design education: a simulation-based investigation of product dissection. Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 032001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzayed, MA, Miller, S and McComb, C (2020 a) Does empathy beget creativity? Investigating the role of trait empathy in idea generation and selection. Paper presented at the Design Computing and Cognition, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Alzayed, MA, Miller, SR, Menold, J, Huff, J and McComb, C (2020 b) Can design teams be empathically creative? A simulation-based investigation on the role of team empathy on concept generation and selection. Paper presented at the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzayed, MA, McComb, C, Menold, J, Huff, J and Miller, S (2021) Are you feeling me? An exploration of empathy development in engineering design education. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143, 112301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzayed, MA, Miller, SR and McComb, C (2021) Empathic creativity: can trait empathy predict creative concept generation and selection? AI EDAM 35, 369–383.Google Scholar
Amabile, T (1982) Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 997–1013. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.5.997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoko, OB, Callan, VJ and Härtel, CE (2008) The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research 39, 121–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, LJ, Lambell, NJ, Reed, SE and Reid, FJ (2001) The Exploration of Solution Options in Design: A ‘Naturalistic Decision Making’ Perspective. Delft, The Netherlands: Designing in Context, Delft University Press, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Batson, CD, Fultz, J and Schoenrade, PA (1987) Distress and empathy: two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality 55, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besemer, SP and O'Quin, K (1999) Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal 12, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breithaupt, F (2018) The bad things we do because of empathy. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 43, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breithaupt, F (2019) The Dark Sides of Empathy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buelin-Biesecker, J and Wiebe, E (2013) Can pedagogical strategies affect students’ creativity? Testing a choice-based approach to design and problem-solving in technology, design, and engineering education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Google Scholar
Cameron, CD (2018) Motivating empathy: three methodological recommendations for mapping empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 12, e12418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, AR, Lee, HS and Ohland, MW (2010) Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, LE and Sullivan, JF (1999) Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of Engineering Education 15, 20–31.Google Scholar
Chan, DW and Chan, L-k (2007) Creativity and drawing abilities of Chinese students in Hong Kong: is there a connection? New Horizons in Education 55, 77–95.Google Scholar
Chen, YC, Chang, YS and Chuang, MJ (2022) Virtual reality application influences cognitive load-mediated creativity components and creative performance in engineering design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 38, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiaans, H and Venselaar, K (2005) Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 15, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, J and Joo, J (2017) Effect of empathy on designers and non-designers in concept evaluation. Archives of Design Research 30, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cook, RD and Weisberg, S (1982) Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Cooper, RG (1990) Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons 33, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cseh, GM and Jeffries, KK (2019) A scattered CAT: a critical evaluation of the consensual assessment technique for creativity research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M (1996) Empathy: a Social Psychological Approach, 1994. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark Publishers.Google Scholar
Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH and Gustafson, DH (1975) Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Foresman Glenview, Scott.Google Scholar
Delp, P, Thesen, A, Motiwalla, J and Seshardi, N (1977) Nominal group technique. Systems Tools for Project Planning, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
Devlin, SP, Flynn, JR and Riggs, SL (2018) Connecting the big five taxonomies: understanding how individual traits contribute to team adaptability under workload transitions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, C and Hill, CE (1996) The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 43, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, GJ, Boisjoly, J, Levy, DM, Kremer, M and Eccles, J (2003) Empathy or antipathy? The consequences of racially and socially diverse peers on attitudes and behaviors.Google Scholar
Dym, CL, Agogino, AM, Eris, O, Frey, DD and Leifer, LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edition, US (2019) Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals. New York, NY, USA: UN.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N, Fabes, RA, Murphy, B, Karbon, M, Maszk, P, Smith, M and Suh, K (1994) The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felder, RM and Silverman, LK (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education 78, 674–681.Google Scholar
Fila, ND and Hess, JL (2016) In their shoes: Student perspectives on the connection between empathy and engineering.Google Scholar
Fischer, G (2013) Learning, social creativity, and cultures of participation. In Sannino, A and Ellis, V (eds), Learning and Collective Creativity: Activity-Theoretical and Sociocultural Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, p. 198.Google Scholar
Fisher, RJ (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freuler, RJ, Fentiman, AW, Demel, JT, Gustafson, RJ and Merrill, JA (2001) Developing and implementing hands-on laboratory exercises and design projects for first year engineering students. Age 6, 1.Google Scholar
Genco, N, Johnson, D, Holtta-Otto, K and Seepersad, CC (2011) A study of the effectiveness of the empathic experience design creativity technique. Paper presented at the ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigliotti, RJ and Buchtel, FS (1990) Attributional bias and course evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilet, A-L, Mella, N, Studer, J, Grühn, D and Labouvie-Vief, G (2013) Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: a French validation of the interpersonal reactivity Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 45, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, J, Lehmann, DR and Mazursky, D (2001) The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success. Management Science 47, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, CM, Yilmaz, S, Daly, SR, Seifert, CM and Gonzalez, R (2015) Idea generation through empathy: reimagining the ‘cognitive walkthrough’.Google Scholar
Hall, D and Buzwell, S (2013) The problem of free-riding in group projects: looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education 14, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, L, Duffy, AH, McTeague, C, Pidgeon, LM, Vuletic, T and Grealy, M (2017) A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: design as search and exploration. Design Science 3, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, JL and Fila, ND (2016) The development and growth of empathy among engineering students.Google Scholar
Hess, J, Fila, N, Purzer, S and Strobel, J (2015) Exploring the relationship between empathy and innovation among engineering students. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Hess, JL, Fila, ND and Purzer, S (2016) The relationship between empathic and innovative tendencies among engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education 32, 1236–1249.Google Scholar
Huber, P (1981) Robust Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons. HuberRobust statistics1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, DG, Genco, N, Saunders, MN, Williams, P, Seepersad, CC and Hölttä-Otto, K (2014) An experimental investigation of the effectiveness of empathic experience design for innovative concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design 136, 051009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, JC and Baer, J (2012) Beyond new and appropriate: who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal 24, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, C, DeRouin, R and Salas, E (2006) Uncovering workplace interpersonal skills: a review, framework, and research agenda. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 21, 79–126.Google Scholar
Knight, DW, Carlson, LE and Sullivan, JF (2007) Improving engineering student retention through hands-on, team based, first-year design projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Koo, TK and Li, MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 15, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, JR and Koch, GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, AC, Sadosky, TL and Connolly, T (1975) The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 3, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J and Seepersad, CC (2007) Empathic lead users: the effects of extraordinary user experiences on customer needs analysis and product redesign. Paper presented at the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, JS, Clauss, E, Kurtoglu, T, Murphy, J, Wood, K and Markman, A (2011) An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. Journal of Mechanical Design 133, 031008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luca, J and Tarricone, P (2001) Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork?Google Scholar
Maier, T, DeFranco, J and Mccomb, C (2019) An analysis of design process and performance in distributed data science teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 25, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattelmäki, T, Vaajakallio, K and Koskinen, I (2014) What happened to empathic design? Design Issues 30, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G and Campbell, SE (1998) Task-induced stress and individual differences in coping. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C, Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (2015) Lifting the veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model. Design Studies 40, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C, Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (2017) Optimizing design teams based on problem properties: computational team simulations and an applied empirical test. Journal of Mechanical Design 139, 041101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinley, C and Dong, H (2011) Designing with information and empathy: delivering human information to designers. The Design Journal 14, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, NA, Ritter, SC, McComb, CC and Menold, JD (2019) Cornerstone engineering design.Google Scholar
Melles, G, Howard, Z and Thompson-Whiteside, S (2012) Teaching design thinking: expanding horizons in design education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31, 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, S and Angell, LC (2003) Personality heterogeneity in teams: which differences make a difference for team performance. Small Group Research 34, 651–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, CZ, Duval, RD and Duvall, R (1993) Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B, Johnson, C and Salas, E (1991) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, GA, Wagner, SH and Christiansen, ND (1999) The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management 24, 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikander, JB, Liikkanen, LA and Laakso, M (2014) The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Design Studies 35, 473–499. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxley, NL, Dzindolet, MT and Paulus, PB (1996) The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 11, 633.Google Scholar
Paulus, PB and Dzindolet, MT (1993) Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Péloquin, K and Lafontaine, M-F (2010) Measuring empathy in couples: validity and reliability of the interpersonal reactivity index for couples. Journal of Personality Assessment 92, 146–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petre, M (2004) How expert engineering teams use disciplines of innovation. Design Studies 25, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, R, Miller, SR, Simpson, TW and Meisel, NA (2018) Teaching design freedom: Exploring the effects of design for additive manufacturing education on the cognitive components of students’ creativity. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 51784. Quebec City, Canada: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V003T04A009.Google Scholar
Problem Statements - Sustainable Development Goal 3. (2020). Retrieved from https://figshare.com/articles/SDG3_ProblemStatement_pdf/11825748Google Scholar
Rapisarda, BA (2002) The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 10, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviselvam, S, Hölttä-Otto, K and Wood, KL (2016) User extreme conditions to enhance designer empathy and creativity: applications using visual impairment. Paper presented at the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviselvam, S, Sanaei, R, Blessing, L, Hölttä-Otto, K and Wood, KL (2017) Demographic factors and their influence on designer creativity and empathy evoked through user extreme conditions. Paper presented at the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, RR, Lynn, GS and Aronson, ZH (2001) The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietzschel, EF, Nijstad, BA and 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, 244–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietzschel, E, Nijstad, BA and Stroebe, W (2009) The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 1–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Rietzschel, E, Nijstad, BA and Stroebe, W (2010) The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology 101, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritter, SC and Bilen, SG (2019) EDSGN 100: a first-year cornerstone engineering design course. Paper presented at the 2019 FYEE Conference.Google Scholar
Roberge, M-E (2013) A multi-level conceptualization of empathy to explain how diversity increases group performance. International Journal of Business and Management 8, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, WA and Bell, P (2004) Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: introduction. Educational Psychologist 39, 199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, E and Morkos, B (2016) Teaching students designer empathy in senior capstone design.Google Scholar
Silvia, PJ (2011) Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: examining the reliability of unusual uses, instances, and consequences tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, S, Chen, H-E, Meisel, NA and Miller, SR (2017) Does designing for additive manufacturing help us be more creative? an exploration in engineering design education. Paper presented at the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, L, Stanne, ME and Donovan, SS (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69, 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starkey, E, Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2016) Abandoning creativity: the evolution of creative ideas in engineering design course projects. Design Studies 47, 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer, LA and Ullman, DG (1991) Fundamental processes of mechanical designers based on empirical data. Journal of Engineering Design 2, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempfle, J and Badke-Schaub, P (2002) Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Design Studies 23, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobel, J, Hess, J, Pan, R and Wachter Morris, CA (2013) Empathy and care within engineering: qualitative perspectives from engineering faculty and practicing engineers. Engineering Studies 5, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surma-aho, A and Hölttä-Otto, K (2022) Conceptualization and operationalization of empathy in design research. Design Studies 78, 101075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surma-aho, AO, BjörklundKatja, TA and Holtta-Otto, K (2018 a) An analysis of designer empathy in the early phases of design projects. Paper presented at the NordDesign 2018.Google Scholar
Surma-aho, AO, BjörklundKatja, TA and Holtta-Otto, K (2018 b) Assessing the development of empathy and innovation attitudes in a project-based engineering design course. Paper presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.Google Scholar
Tang, X (2018) From ‘Empathic Design’ to ‘Empathic Engineering’: toward a genealogy of empathy in engineering education.Google Scholar
Tempelman, E and Pilot, A (2011) Strengthening the link between theory and practice in teaching design engineering: an empirical study on a new approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 21, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Design Studies 38, 111–138. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2016 a) Choosing creativity: the role of individual risk and ambiguity aversion on creative concept selection in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 27, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2016 b) Creativity in design teams: the influence of personality traits and risk attitudes on creative concept selection. Research in Engineering Design 27, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2016 c) The preferences for creativity scale (PCS): identifying the underlying constructs of creative concept selection. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Design Education, Charlotte, NC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, C and Miller, SR (2019) Does the preferences for creativity scale predict engineering students’ ability to generate and select creative design alternatives? Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 062001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van De Van, A and Delbecq, AL (1974) The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. The Academy of Management Journal 17, 605–621.Google Scholar
van Rijn, H, Sleeswijk Visser, F, Stappers, PJ and Özakar, AD (2011) Achieving empathy with users: the effects of different sources of information. CoDesign 7, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V and Linsey, JS (2013 a) Examining design fixation in engineering idea generation: the role of example modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, VK and Linsey, JS (2013 b) Role of sunk cost in engineering idea generation: an experimental investigation. Journal of Mechanical Design 135, 121002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J, Miller, SE and Kellam, NN (2012) Exploring the role of empathy in engineering communication through a transdisciplinary dialogue. Paper presented at the 119th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.Google Scholar
Williges, RC, Johnston, WA and Briggs, GE (1966) Role of verbal communication in teamwork. Journal of Applied Psychology 50, 473. Retrieved from http://media.proquest.com/media/csa/psycarticles-set-c/APL/50/apl_50_6_473.pdf.pdf?hl=&cit%3Aauth=WILLIGES%2C+ROBERT+C.%3BJOHNSTON%2C+WILLIAM+A.%3BBRIGGS%2C+GEORGE+E.&cit%3Atitle=ROLE+OF+VERBAL+COMMUNICATION+IN+TEAMWORK.&cit%3Apub=Journal+of+Applied+Psychology&cit%3Avol=50&cit%3Aiss=6&cit%3Apg=473&cit%3Adate=Dec+1966&ic=true&cit%3Aprod=PsycARTICLES&_a=ChgyMDE0MDUyMzE5NTUyNzAyNTozNzc2ODkSBTk5MjEyGgpPTkVfU0VBUkNIIg4xMzAuMjAzLjE2NC42OCoFNjA5MDMyCTYxNDMzODI5MDoNRG9jdW1lbnRJbWFnZUIBMFIGT25saW5lWgJGVGIDUEZUagoxOTY2LzEyLzAxcgB6AIIBJVAtMTAwNzU2Ny0xMzE1OC1DVVNUT01FUi1udWxsLTExNDYxNjSSAQZPbmxpbmXKAQdFbmROb3Rl0gESU2Nob2xhcmx5IEpvdXJuYWxzmgIHUHJlUGFpZKoCKE9TOkVNUy1QZGZEb2NWaWV3QmFzZS1nZXRNZWRpYVVybEZvckl0ZW2yAgC6AgDKAg9BcnRpY2xlfEZlYXR1cmXSAgFZ4gIBTuoCAPICAA%3D%3D&_s=E%2BSbJvbOMilQNQ0GxTD0Mrnhg2Y%3DCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, DB (2007) Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies. Behavior Research Methods 39, 460–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, X and Miller, SR (2019) Is ownership bias Bad? The influence of idea goodness and creativity on design professionals concept selection practices. Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 021106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, X, Ritter, SC and Miller, SR (2018) How concept selection tools impact the development of creative ideas in engineering design education. Journal of Mechanical Design 140, 052002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar