Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to put things together

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

Abstract

Instructions for putting things together or understanding how things work are notoriously frustrating. Performance relies on constructing mental models of the object and the actions of the object from text or diagrams or both. Here, we show that instructions can be improved by turning users into designers and deriving design principles from their designs. People first assembled an object and then crafted assembly instructions, using text alone or text and diagrams. Some were required to be brief and to include only the most essential information. Users’ instructions had a narrative structure with an introduction, a middle, and an end. The essential middle described or depicted the step-by-step sequence of actions on parts. Diagrams were regarded as fundamental, and redundancy of depictions and descriptions desirable. These design principles have wide applicability to many kinds of explanations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

References

  • Bauer MI, Johnson-Laird PN (1993) How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychol Sci 4(6):372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JM, Mack RL, Robertson SP, Rosson MB (1994) Binding objects to scenarios of use. Int J Hum Comput Stud 41:243–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng PC-H (1996) Functional roles for the cognitive analysis of diagrams in problem solving. In: Cottrell GW (ed) Proceeding of the eighteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 207–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel M-P, Denis M (2003) The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favor concise spatial discourse. Appl Cogn Psychol 18(1):57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel MP, Manghi E, Tom A, Denis M (2003) Testing the value of route directions through navigational performance. Spat Cogn Comput 3(4):269–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Curr Psychol Cogn 16:409–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon P (1987a) The processing of mental plans for following directions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13(1):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon P (1987b) The processing of organizational and component step information in written directions. J Mem Lang 26:24–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganier F (2004) Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: implications for document design. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 47(1):15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, Stevens AL (1983) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg AM, Langston WE (1992) Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. J Mem Lang 31:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty M, Carpenter PA, Just MA (1990) Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific text. In: Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P, Pearson PD (eds) Handbook of reading research. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiser J, Phan D, Agrawala M, Tversky B, Hanrahan P (2004) Identification and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions. In: Proceedings of advanced visual interfaces’04, pp 311–319, ACM

  • Kessell AM, Tversky B (2011) Visualizing space, time, and agents: production, performance, and preference. Cogn Process 12:43–52. doi:10.1007/s10339-010-0379-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krull R, D’Souza S, Roy D, Sharp DM, Roy D (2004) Designing procedural illustrations: IEEE transactions on professional communication. Acquir Proced Knowl Technol Interface 47(1):27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Petersen AC (1986) A meta-anaysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In: Hyde JS, Linn MC (eds) The psychology of gender: advances through metaanalysis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 67–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani K, Johnson-Laird PN (1982) The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory Cogn 10:181–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus N, Cooper M, Sweller J (1996) Understanding instructions. J Educ Psychol 88:49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mijksenaar P, Westendorp P (1999) Open here: the art of instructional design. Thames and Hudson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1998) The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick LR (2001) Spatial diagrams: key instruments in the toolbox for thought. In: Medin DL (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 40. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 279–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick LR (2006) Understanding spatial diagram structure. Q J Exp Psychol 59:1826–1856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick LR, Morse DL (2000) Folding a fish, making a mushroom: the role of diagrams in executing assembly procedures. Memory Cogn 28(7):1242–1256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:185–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz W (2002) Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educ Psychol Rev 14(1):101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cogn Sci 19:97–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, Cheshire

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2005) Visualspatial reasoning. In: Holyoak K, Morrison R (eds) Handbook of reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–249

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Agrawala M, Heiser J, Lee PU, Hanrahan P, Phan D, Stolte C, Daniel M-P (2007) Cognitive design principles for generating visualizations. In: Allen G (ed) Applied spatial cognition: from research to cognitive technology. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Corter JE, Yu L, Mason DL, Nickerson JV (2012) Representing category and continuum: visualizing thought. In: Rodgers P, Cox P, Plimmer B (eds) Diagrammatic representation and inference. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual Motor Skills 47:599–604

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zacks JM, Tversky B, Iyer G (2001) Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. J Exp Psychol: Gen 130:29–58

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Julie Heiser for her participation in the design, execution, and analyses of the second experiment. The research was aided by the following grants: National Science Foundation HHC 0905417, IIS-0725223, IIS-0855995, and REC 0440103, the Stanford Regional Visualization and Analysis Center, and Office of Naval Research NOOO14-PP-1-O649, N000140110717, and N000140210534.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Limsi-CNRS, Orsay, France

    Marie-Paule Daniel

  2. Columbia Teachers College, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Barbara Tversky

Authors
  1. Marie-Paule Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Tversky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Paule Daniel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daniel, MP., Tversky, B. How to put things together. Cogn Process 13, 303–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0521-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0521-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation