Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Cognitive tools shape thought: diagrams in design

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thinking often entails interacting with cognitive tools. In many cases, notably design, the predominant tool is the page. The page allows externalizing, organizing, and reorganizing thought. Yet, the page has its own properties that by expressing thought affect it: path, proximity, place, and permanence. The effects of these properties were evident in designs of information systems created by students Paths were interpreted as routes through components. Proximity was used to group subsystems. Horizontal position on the page was used to express temporal sequence and vertical position to reflect real-world spatial position. The permanence of designs on the page guided but also constrained generation of alternative designs. Cognitive tools both reflect and affect thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Akin Ö (2001) Variants in design cognition. In: Eastman C, McCracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 105–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Avital M, Lyytinen K, Boland R, Butler B, Dougherty D, Fineout M, Jansen W, Levina N, Rifkin W, Venable J (2006) Design with a positive lens: an affirmative approach to designing information and organizations. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 18:519–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks WP, Flora J (1977) Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 3(2):278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barthélemy M (2011) Spatial networks. Phys Rep 499(1):1–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) The unified modeling language user guide, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky L (2000) Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1):1–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JM (2000) Making use: scenario-based design of human computer interactions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Casasanto D, Henetz T (2012) Handedness shapes children’s abstract concepts. Cogn Sci 36:359–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee A (2001) Language and space: some interactions. Trends Cogn Sci 5:55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark HH (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In: Moore TE (ed) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. Academic Press, NY, pp 27–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WE, Ross JR (1975) World order. In: Grossman RE, San LJ, Vances TJ (eds) Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp 63–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald M (1991) Origins of the modern mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dontcheva M, Gerber E, Lewis S (2011) Crowdsourcing and creativity. CHI 2011: Crowdsourcing Workshop

  • Dow S, Kulkarni A, Bunge B, Nguyen T, Klemmer S, Hartmann B (2011) Shepherding the crowd: managing and providing feedback to crowd workers. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI)

  • Egan DE, Schwartz BJ (1979) Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Mem Cogn 7:149–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey K (2001) Language, cognition, and the brain: insights from sign language research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish J, Scrivener S (1990) Amplifying the mind’s eye: sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo 23(1):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd RW (1962) Algorithm 97: shortest path. Commun ACM 5(6):345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol 12(3):306–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn Psychol 15(1):1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden BL, Ball M (1978) Shortest paths with euclidean distances: an explanatory model. Networks 8(4):297–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow S (2003) Hearing gesture: how our hands help us think. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creat Res J 4(2):123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Des Stud 15(2):158–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminiski JA, Sloutsky VM, Heckler AF, Sun R, Miyake N (2006) Effects of concreteness on representation: an explanation for differential transfer. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1581–1586

  • Kirsh D (2010) Explaining artifact evolution. In: Malafouris L and Renfrew C (eds) The cognitive life of things: recasting the boundaries of the mind. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge pp 121–144

  • Kranjec A, Lehet M, Bromberger B, Chatterjee A (2010) A sinister bias for calling fouls in soccer. PLoS One 5(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011667

  • Kruskal JB (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy D, Goldstone RL (2007) The alignment of order and space in arithmetic computation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 382–387

  • Liddell S (2003) Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In: Emmorey K (ed) Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 199–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass A, Russo A (2003) Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: nature or culture? Psychol Sci 14:296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maass A, Pagani D, Berta E (2007) How beautiful is the goal and how violent is the fistfight? Spatial bias in the interpretation of human behavior. Soc Cogn 25:833–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher ML (2010) Design creativity research: from the individual to the crowd. In: Taura T, Nagai Y (eds) Design creativity 2010. Springer, London, pp 41–47

    Google Scholar 

  • March S, Hevner A, Ram S (2000) Research commentary: an agenda for information technology research in heterogeneous and distributed environments. Inf Syst Res 11(4):327–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (2001) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer R (1973) Comparing objects in memory: evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics. Percept Psychophys 13:180–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson JV (2006) Teaching the integration of information systems technologies. IEEE Trans Educ 49:271–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson JV, Sakamoto Y (2010) Crowdsourcing creativity: combining ideas in networks. Workshop on Information in Networks

  • Norman DA (1993) Things that make us smart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick LR (1990) Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychol Sci 1(2):128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberlander J (1996) Grice for graphics: pragmatic implicature in network diagrams. Inf Des J 8(6):163–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer DM, Trail TE (2010) Why leaning to the left makes you lean to the left: effect of spatial orientation on political attitudes. Soc Cogn 28:651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pemmaraju S, Skienna S (2003) Computational discrete mathematics: combinatorics and graph theory with mathematica. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson LL, Davie BS (2011) Computer networks: a systems approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Petre M, Green TRG (1993) Learning to read graphics: some evidence that ‘seeing’ an information display is an acquired skill. J Vis Lang Comput 4:55–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmiles D, Nakakoji K (2004) Supporting reflective practitioners. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on software engineering (ICSE’04), pp 688–690

  • Rosch E (1978) Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB (eds) Cognition and categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 27–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart D (1980) On evaluating story grammars. Cogn Sci 4:313–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfeliu A, Fu KS (1983) A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13(3):353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrepfer M, Wolf J, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2009) The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 39, part 5. Springer, pp 161–175

  • Schubert T (2005) Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. J Pers Soc Psychol 89(1):1–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert TW, Waldzus S, Seibt B (2008) The embodiment of power and communalism in space and bodily contact. In: Semin GR, Smith ER (eds) Embodied grounding: social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 160–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith SM, Blankenship E (1991) Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. Am J Psychol 104:61–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1962) The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Tversky B (2001) Constructive perception in design. In: Gero JS, Maher ML (eds) Computational and cognitive models of creative design. University of Sydney, Sydney, pp 227–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Tversky B (2003) Constructive perception: a skill for coordinating perception and conception. In: Alterman R, Kirsh D (eds) Proceedings of the 25 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Boston, pp 1140–1145

    Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Tversky B, Gero J, Purcell T (2001) Seeing into sketches: regrouping parts encourages new interpretations. In: Gero JS, Tversky B, Purcell T (eds) Visual and spatial reasoning in design Sydney. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Australia, pp 207–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy L (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy L (2003) The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In: Emmorey K (ed) Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 311–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy L (2005) The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In: Hampe B, Grady JE (eds) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics Research 29. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 199–234

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992) Descriptions and depictions of environments. Mem Cogn 20:483–496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (1995) Cognitive origins of graphic conventions. In: Marchese FT (ed) Understanding images. Springer, New York, pp 29–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2001) Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis M (ed) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 79–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2011a) Spatial thought, social thought. In: Schubert T, Maass A (eds) Spatial dimensions of social thought. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 17–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2011b) Visualizations of thought. Top Cogn Sci 3:499–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Suwa M (2009) Thinking with sketches. In: Markman AB, Wood KL (eds) Tools for innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 75–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Kugelmass S, Winter A (1991) Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cogn Psychol 23:515–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Zacks J, Lee PU, Heiser J (2000) Lines, blobs, crosses, and arrows: diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. In: Anderson M, Cheng P, Haarslev V (eds) Theory and application of diagrams. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Heiser J, Lee P, Daniel MP (2009) Explanations in gesture, diagram, and word. In: Coventry KR, Tenbrink T, Bateman J (eds) Spatial language and dialogue. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–131

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf Syst J 3(4):217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T (1996) Bringing design to software. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu L, Nickerson JV (2011) Cooks or cobblers? Crowd creativity through combination. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI)

  • Yu L, Nickerson JV (2013) An Internet scale idea generation system. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 3(1). Art 2

  • Zacks J, Tversky B (2001) Event structure in perception and conception. Psychol Bull 127(1):3–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by awards IIS-0725223, HHC-0905417, IIS-0855995, and IIS-0968561 from the National Science Foundation, and by the Stanford Regional Visualization and Analysis Center.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Doris Zahner

    Present address: Council for Aid to Education, 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

  2. Yun-Jin Rho

    Present address: Pearson Education, 75 Arlington Street, Boston, MA, 02116, USA

  3. Lixiu Yu

    Present address: Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Decision Technologies, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ, 07030, USA

    Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Doris Zahner & Lixiu Yu

  2. Department of Human Development, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    James E. Corter, Barbara Tversky & Yun-Jin Rho

Authors
  1. Jeffrey V. Nickerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Corter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Tversky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun-Jin Rho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Doris Zahner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lixiu Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey V. Nickerson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nickerson, J.V., Corter, J.E., Tversky, B. et al. Cognitive tools shape thought: diagrams in design. Cogn Process 14, 255–272 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0547-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0547-3

Keywords