Skip to main content Accessibility help

Images of users and products shown during design processes increase users’ willingness to use the design outcome

  • Bo T. Christensen (a1)


Two studies tested whether introducing images to designers during the design process lead to more useful design solutions as evaluated by the end users’ willingness to use the final design. It was hypothesized based on theories in cognitive science and design that there were at least two paths from images to usefulness. One path concerns analogically transferring within-domain properties to the design solution. The other path concerns mentally simulating end-user characteristics and preferences and inclusion of the user in the resulting design. Study 1 supported that random images led to increased outcome usefulness, and supported both hypothesized paths, by using within-domain products and end-user images as input. Study 2 showed that the image categories competed for attention, and that the within-domain product stimuli attracted the most attention and was considered the most inspirational to the designers. The practical use of the technique may lead to only marginally original products perhaps limiting its applicability to incremental innovation.



Hide All
Bailetti, A., & Litva, P. (1995). Integrating customer requirments into product designs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 315.
Bennett, R.C., & Cooper, R.G. (1979). Beyond the marketing concept. Business Horizons 22, 7683.
Beveridge, M., & Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving. Memory & Cognition 15, 230237.
Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity & Innovation Management 13, 176186.
Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2005). Favouring creativity in design projects: challenges and findings of experimental studies. In Studying Designers ‘05 (Gero, J., & Bonnardel, N., Eds.), pp. 2132. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies 20, 153175.
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35, 2938.
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2009 a). Putting blinkers on a blind man. Providing cognitive support for creative processes with environmental cues. In Tools for Innovation (Markman, A.B., & Wood, K.L., Eds.), pp. 4874. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2009 b). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23, 327344.
Christensen, C., & Bower, J. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17, 197218.
Christiaans, H., & Andel, J.V. (1993). The effects of examples on the use of knowledge in a student design activity: the case of the “flying Dutchman.” Design Studies 14, 5874.
Dahl, D.W., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G.J. (1999). The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research 36, 1828.
Dahl, D.W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39, 4760.
de Bono, E. (1975). The Uses of Lateral Thinking. New York: Harper & Row.
Dugosh, K.L., & Paulus, P.B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41, 313320.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E., Eds.), pp. 365395. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The invivo/invitro approach to cognition: the case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5, 334339.
Firestien, R.L. (1996). Leading on the Creative Edge. Gaining Competitive Advantage Through the Power of Creative Problem Solving. Colorado Springs, CO: Piñon Press.
Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1994). MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science 19, 141205.
Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In A Companion to Cognitive Science (Bechtel, W., & Graham, G., Eds.), pp. 107113. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gentner, D. (2002). Psychology of mental models. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Smelser, N.J., & Bates, P.B., Eds.), pp. 96839687. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes (Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., & Vaid, J. Eds.), pp. 403459. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J., & Forbus, K.D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524575.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12, 306355.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15, 138.
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies 16, 189209.
Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual analogy: a strategy for design reasoning and learning. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M., & Newstetter, W.C., Eds.), pp. 199220. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., & Vollrath, D.A. (1997). The emerging conceptualisation of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121, 4364.
Holyoak, K.J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition 15, 332340.
Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist 52, 3544.
Im, S., & Workman, J.P. Jr. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing 68, 114132.
Jaarsveld, S., & van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from a design process: creative cognition inferred from intermediate products. Cognitive Science 29, 79101.
Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12, 311.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 313331. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Judgement Under Uncertainty. Heuristics and Biases (Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A., Eds.), pp. 201210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuipers, B. (1994). Qualitative Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22, 116.
MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wagner, C. (1994). Stimulating ideas through creativity software. Management Science 40, 15141532.
Marsh, R.L., Landau, J.D., & Hicks, J.L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Memory & Cognition 24, 669680.
Marsh, R.L., Ward, T.B., & Landau, J.D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory & Cognition 27, 94105.
Mayer, R.E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In Handbook of Creativity (Sternberg, R.J., Ed.), pp. 449460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nersessian, N.J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In Cognitive Basis of Science (Carruthers, P., & Stich, S., Eds.), pp. 133153. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, 535544.
Norman, D.A., & Draper, S.W. (1986). User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Novick, L.R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14, 510520.
Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination, 3rd rev. ed.New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18, 93102.
Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1996). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Chichester: Wiley.
Ross, B.H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 13, 629639.
Ross, B.H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 15, 456468.
Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. New York: Wiley.
Simon, H.A., & Hayes, J.R. (1976). The understanding process: problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology 8, 165190.
Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Schumacher, J.S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generations task. Memory & Cognition 21, 837845.
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.E. (2000). Product Design and Development, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw–Hill.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 17. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology 27, 140.
Ward, T.B. (1995). What's old about new ideas? In The Creative Cognition Approach (Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Finke, R.A., Eds.), pp. 157178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ward, T.B. (1998). Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: mental leaps versus mental hops. In Advances in Analogy Research: Integration of Theory and Data from the Cognitive, Computational, and Neural Sciences (Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B.N., Eds.). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University.
Ward, T.B., Patterson, M.J., Sifonis, C.M., Dodds, R.A., & Saunders, K.N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition 30, 199216.


Images of users and products shown during design processes increase users’ willingness to use the design outcome

  • Bo T. Christensen (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed