skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979359acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results

Published: 07 May 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Prototypes ground group communication and facilitate decision making. However, overly investing in a single design idea can lead to fixation and impede the collaborative process. Does sharing multiple designs improve collaboration? In a study, participants created advertisements individually and then met with a partner. In the Share Multiple condition, participants designed and shared three ads. In the Share Best condition, participants designed three ads and selected one to share. In the Share One condition, participants designed and shared one ad. Sharing multiple designs improved outcome, exploration, sharing, and group rapport. These participants integrated more of their partner's ideas into their own subsequent designs, explored a more divergent set of ideas, and provided more productive critiques of their partner's designs. Furthermore, their ads were rated more highly and garnered a higher click-through rate when hosted online.

References

[1]
Arkes, H. R. and Blumer, C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35, 1 (1985), 124--140.
[2]
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., and Smollan, D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 4 (1992), 596--612.
[3]
Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., and Geffner, R. Interdependent Interactions and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education 12, 1 (1978), 16--27.
[4]
Ball, L. J. and Ormerod, T. C. Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 43, 1 (1995), 131--151.
[5]
Bao, P., Gerber, E., Gergle, D., and Hoffman, D. Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. Proc of conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 1233--1236.
[6]
Ben-David, I., Graham, J. R., and Harvey, C. R. Managerial Overconfidence and Corporate Policies. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 13711, (2007).
[7]
Brandt, J., Dontcheva, M., Weskamp, M., and Klemmer, S. R. Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. Proc of conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 513--522.
[8]
Brereton, M., Cannon, M., Mabogunje, A., and Leifer, L. Collaboration in Design Teams: How Social Interaction Shapes the Product. In Analyzing Design Activity. Wiley, 1996.
[9]
Buxton, B. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2007.
[10]
Cross, N. Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies 25, 5 (2004), 427--441.
[11]
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., and Xu, H. What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 3 (2006), 493--512.
[12]
Dannels, D. P. and Martin, K. N. Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback Across Novice to Expert Design Studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22, 2 (2008), 135--159.
[13]
Davidoff, S., Lee, M. K., Dey, A. K., and Zimmerman, J. Rapidly Exploring Application Design Through Speed Dating. Proc. of Conf on Ubiquitous Computing, (2007).
[14]
Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. Productivity Loss In Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 3 (1987), 497--509.
[15]
Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., and Klemmer, S. R. The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraints. Proceeding of ACM Conf. on Creativity and Cognition, ACM (2009), 165--174.
[16]
Dow, S., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., and Klemmer, S. R. Parallel Prototyping Leads to Better Design Results, More Divergence, and Increased Self-Efficacy. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 4, (2010).
[17]
Dweck, C. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books, 2007.
[18]
Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[19]
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, 2003.
[20]
Felps, W., Mitchell, T., and Byington, E. How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups. Research in Organizational Behavior 27, (2006), 175--222.
[21]
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. M. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. The MIT Press, 1996.
[22]
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., and Benford, S. Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2003), 233--240.
[23]
Gerber, E. Prototyping Practice in Context: The Psychological Experience in a High Tech Firm. Journal of Design Studies, (2010).
[24]
Hampton, J. A. Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition 15, 1 (1987), 55--71.
[25]
Hartmann, B., Yu, L., Allison, A., Yang, Y., and Klemmer, S. R. Design as exploration: creating interface alternatives through parallel authoring and runtime tuning. Proc of the conf on User interface software and technology, ACM (2008), 91--100.
[26]
Herzog, S. M. and Hertwig, R. The Wisdom of Many in One Mind. Psychological Science 20, 2 (2009), 231--237.
[27]
Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 3 (2001), 185--212.
[28]
Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M. R. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 6 (2000), 995--1006.
[29]
Janis, I. L. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Wadsworth Publishing, 1982.
[30]
Jansson, D. and Smith, S. Design Fixation. Design Studies 12, 1 (1991), 3--11.
[31]
Kershaw, T. C. and Ohlsson, S. Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1 (2004), 3--13.
[32]
Kohavi, R. and Longbotham, R. Online Experiments: Lessons Learned. Computer 40, 2007, 103--105.
[33]
Kosara, R. Visualization Criticism - The Missing Link Between Information Visualization and Art. Proc of the Conf on Information Visualization, IEEE Computer Society (2007), 631--636.
[34]
Larrick, R. P. Broaden the decision frame to make effective decisions. In Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. Wiley and Sons, 2009.
[35]
Lee, B., Srivastava, S., Kumar, R., Brafman, R., and Klemmer, S. R. Designing with interactive example galleries. Proc of the conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 2257--2266.
[36]
Leifer, L. Dancing with Ambiguity: design thinking in theory and practice. 2010.
[37]
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., and Harris, J. No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work. Proc of the conf on Human factors in computing systems, (2005), 321--330.
[38]
Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., and Hicks, J. L. How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Memory & Cognition 24, 5 (1996), 669--680.
[39]
Moran, T. P. and Carroll, J. M. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. CRC Press, 1996.
[40]
Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology 2, (1998), 175--220.
[41]
Nielsen, J. and Faber, J. M. Improving System Usability Through Parallel Design. Computer 29, 2 (1996), 29--35.
[42]
Ranganath, R., Jurafsky, D., and McFarland, D. It's not you, it's me: detecting flirting and its misperception in speed-dates. Proc of Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics (2009), 334--342.
[43]
S. Smith. Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition 21, (1993), 837--845.
[44]
Schon, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing, 1995.
[45]
Schrage, M. Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
[46]
Schwartz, B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco, 2004.
[47]
Schwartz, D. L. The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 3 (1995), 321.
[48]
Stroebe, W. and Diehl, M. Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups. European Review of Social Psychology 5, (1994), 271.
[49]
Sutton, R. and Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1996).
[50]
Taylor, D., Berry, P., and Block, C. Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly 3, 1 (1958), 23--47.
[51]
Thomke, S. and Nimgade, A. IDEO Product Development. Harvard Business School Case, (2000).
[52]
Thompson, L., Gentner, D., and Loewenstein, J. Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1 (2000), 60--75.
[53]
Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., and Sellen, A. Getting the right design and the design right. Proceedings of the SIG-CHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM (2006), 1243--1252.
[54]
Warr, A. and O'Neill, E. Understanding design as a social creative process. Proc of the conf on Creativity & Cognition, ACM (2005), 118--127.
[55]
Wisniewski, E. and Gentner, D. On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: {Minor} and major adjustments to meaning. In Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1991, 241--284.
[56]
Zwicky, F. Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach. MacMillan, 1969.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards a Design Framework for Data-Driven Game Streaming: A Multi-Stakeholder ApproachProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36771078:CHI PLAY(1-28)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Hevelius Report: Visualizing Web-Based Mobility Test Data For Clinical Decision and Learning SupportProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility10.1145/3663548.3688490(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
  • (2024)When to Give Feedback: Exploring Tradeoffs in the Timing of Design FeedbackProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition10.1145/3635636.3656183(292-310)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2011
      3530 pages
      ISBN:9781450302289
      DOI:10.1145/1978942
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 07 May 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. creativity
      2. critique
      3. design teams
      4. exploration
      5. prototyping

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      CHI '11
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate 410 of 1,532 submissions, 27%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI 2025
      ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 26 - May 1, 2025
      Yokohama , Japan

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)120
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
      Reflects downloads up to 14 Feb 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Towards a Design Framework for Data-Driven Game Streaming: A Multi-Stakeholder ApproachProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36771078:CHI PLAY(1-28)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2024
      • (2024)Hevelius Report: Visualizing Web-Based Mobility Test Data For Clinical Decision and Learning SupportProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility10.1145/3663548.3688490(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
      • (2024)When to Give Feedback: Exploring Tradeoffs in the Timing of Design FeedbackProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition10.1145/3635636.3656183(292-310)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2024
      • (2024)AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideationProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642414(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
      • (2024)Student-Centered Learning in HCI/UX/UI Framework: The Thai Experience2024 8th International Conference on Information Technology (InCIT)10.1109/InCIT63192.2024.10810571(121-126)Online publication date: 14-Nov-2024
      • (2023)UIProtoCheck: A Checklist for Semantic Inspection of User Interface PrototypesProceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3613372.3613376(485-490)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
      • (2023)Inform, Explain, or Control: Techniques to Adjust End-User Performance Expectations for a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat DiscussionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36101927:CSCW2(1-26)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
      • (2023)To Err is AI: Imperfect Interventions and Repair in a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat DiscussionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35795327:CSCW1(1-23)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
      • (2023)Understanding Version Control as Material Interaction with QuickposeProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581394(1-18)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
      • (2023)PopBlends: Strategies for Conceptual Blending with Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580948(1-19)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media