Concept selection is a critical stage of the engineering design process because of its potential to influence the direction of the final design. While formalized selection methods have been developed to increase its effectiveness and reduce human decision-making biases, research that understands these biases in more detail can provide a foundation for improving the selection process. One important bias that occurs during this process is ownership bias or an unintentional preference for an individual's own ideas over the ideas of others. However, few studies have explored ownership bias in a design setting and the influence of other factors such as the gender of the designer or the “goodness” of an idea. In order to understand the impact of these factors in engineering design education, a study was conducted with 110 engineering students. The results from this study show that male students tend to show ownership bias during concept selection by selecting more of their own ideas while female students tend to show the opposite bias, the Halo Effect, by selecting more of their team members' concepts. In addition, participants exhibited ownership bias for ideas that were considered good or high quality, but the opposite bias for ideas that were not considered good or high quality. These results add to our understanding of the factors that impact team concept selection and provide empirical evidence of the occurrence of ownership bias and the effects of gender and idea goodness in engineering design education.

References

References
1.
King
,
A. M.
, and
Sivaloganathan
,
S.
,
1999
, “
Development of a Methodology for Concept Selection in Flexible Design Strategies
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
10
(
4
), pp.
329
349
.
2.
Pugh
,
S.
,
1996
,
Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design
,
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing
,
Boston, MA
.
3.
Okudan
,
G. E.
, and
Tauhid
,
S.
,
2008
, “
Concept Selection Methods–A Literature Review From 1980 to 2008
,”
Int. J. Des. Eng.
,
1
(
3
), pp.
243
277
.
4.
Baddeley
,
A.
,
2003
, “
Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward
,”
Nat. Rev.
,
4
(
1
), pp.
829
839
.
5.
Miller
,
G. A.
,
1956
, “
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information
,”
Psychol. Rev
,
63
(
1
), pp.
81
97
.
6.
De Martino
,
B.
,
Kumaran
,
D.
,
Seymour
,
B.
, and
Dolan
,
R. J.
,
2006
, “
Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain
,”
Science
,
313
(
5787
), pp.
684
687
.
7.
Onarheim
,
B.
, and
Christensen
,
B. T.
,
2012
, “
Distributed Idea Screening in Stage-Gate Development Processes
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
23
(
9
), pp.
660
673
.
8.
Kruglanski
,
A. W.
, and
Webster
,
D. M.
,
1996
, “
Motivated Closing of the Mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
,”
Psychol. Rev.
,
103
(
1
), pp.
263
283
.
9.
Amabile
,
T.
,
1996
,
Creativity in Context
,
Westview Press
,
Boulder, CO
.
10.
Kichuk
,
S.
, and
Wiesner
,
W.
,
1998
, “
The Big Five Personality Factors and Team Performance: Implications for Selecting Successful Product Design Teams
,”
J. Eng. Technol. Manage.
,
14
(
3–4
), pp.
195
221
.
11.
Hammond
,
J. S.
,
Keeney
,
R. L.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
,
1998
, “
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
,”
Harv. Bus. Rev.
,
76
(
5
), pp.
47
58
.
12.
Ross
,
M.
, and
Sicoly
,
F.
,
1979
, “
Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
3
(
1
), pp.
322
336
.
13.
Roese
,
N. J.
, and
Olson
,
J. M.
,
1994
, “
Attitude Importance as a Function of Repeated Attitude Expression
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
30
(
1
), pp.
39
51
.
14.
Dym
,
C. W.
,
Wesner
,
J. W.
, and
Winner
,
L.
,
2003
, “
Social Dimensions of Engineering Designs: Observations From Mudd Design Workshop III
,”
J. Eng. Educ.
,
92
(
1
), pp.
105
107
.
15.
Hambali
,
A.
,
Supuan
,
S. M.
,
Ismail
,
N.
, and
Nukman
,
Y.
,
2009
, “
Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process in the Design Concept Selection of Automotive Composite Bumper Beam During the Conceptual Design Stage
,”
Sci. Res. Essays
,
4
(
4
), pp.
198
211
.
16.
Huang
,
H.-Z.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Li
,
Y.
,
Xue
,
L.
, and
Wang
,
Z.
,
2013
, “
New Evaluation Methods for Conceptual Design Selection Using Computational Intelligence Techniques
,”
J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
,
27
(
3
), pp.
733
746
.
17.
Cooper
,
S. Y.
, and
Lucas
,
W. A.
,
2006
, “
Developing Self-Efficacy for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Educational Approach
,”
Int. J. Entrepreneurship Educ.
,
4
, pp.
141
162
.
18.
Nikander
,
J. B.
,
Liikkanen
,
L. A.
, and
Laakso
,
M.
,
2014
, “
The Preference Effect in Design Concept Evaluation
,”
Des. Stud.
,
35
(
5
), pp.
473
499
.
19.
Cooper
,
R. G.
,
Edgett
,
S. J.
, and
Kleinschmidt
,
E. J.
,
2002
, “
Optimizing the Stage–Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do
,”
Res. Technol. Manage.
,
45
, pp.
21
27
.
20.
Pelham
,
B. W.
,
Mirenberg
,
M. C.
, and
Jones
,
J. T.
,
2002
, “
Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Implicit Egotism and Major Life Decisions
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
82
(
4
), pp.
469
487
.
21.
Kitayama
,
S.
, and
Karasawa
,
M.
,
1997
, “
Implicit Self-Esteem in Japan: Name-Letters and Birthday Numbers
,”
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
,
23
(
1
), pp.
736
742
.
22.
Kahneman
,
D.
,
Knetsch
,
J. L.
, and
Thaler
,
R. H.
,
1990
, “
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
,”
J. Political Econ.
,
98
(
6
), pp.
1325
1348
.
23.
Kahneman
,
D.
,
Knetsch
,
J. L.
, and
Thaler
,
R. H.
,
1991
, “
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Lost Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
,”
J. Econ. Perspect.
,
5
(
1
), pp.
193
206
.
24.
Kahneman
,
D.
, and
Tversky
,
A.
,
1979
, “
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk
,”
Econometrica
,
47
(
2
), pp.
263
291
.
25.
Pierce
,
J. L.
,
Kostova
,
T.
, and
Dirks
,
K. T.
,
2003
, “
The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research
,”
Rev. Gen. Psychol.
,
8
(
1
), pp.
84
107
.
26.
Alicke
,
M. D.
,
1985
, “
Global Self-Evaluation as Determined by the Desirability and Controllability of Trait Adjectives
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
49
(
6
), pp.
1621
1630
.
27.
Barone
,
M. J.
,
Shimp
,
T. A.
, and
Sprott
,
D. E.
,
1997
, “
Mere Ownership Revisited: A Robust Effect?”
J. Consum. Psychol.
,
6
(
3
), pp.
257
284
.
28.
Chernyshenko
,
O. S.
,
Miner
,
A. G.
,
Baumann
,
M. R.
, and
Sniezek
,
J. A.
,
2003
, “
The Impact of Information Distribution, Ownership, and Discussion on Group Member Judgment: The Differential Cue Weighting Model
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
,
91
(
1
), pp.
12
25
.
29.
Wittenbaum
,
G. M.
,
Hubbell
,
A. P.
, and
Zuckerman
,
C.
,
1999
, “
Mutual Enhancement: Toward an Understanding of the Collective Preference for Shared Information
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
77
(
5
), pp.
967
978
.
30.
Van Swol
,
L. M.
,
2007
, “
Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias
,”
Group Process. Intergroup Relat.
,
10
(
2
), pp.
239
256
.
31.
Kling
,
K. C.
,
Hyde
,
J. S.
,
Showers
,
C. J.
, and
Buswell
,
B. N.
,
1999
, “
Gender Difference in Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis
,”
Psychol. Bull.
,
125
(
4
), pp.
470
500
.
32.
Beyer
,
S.
,
1990
, “
Gender Differences in the Accuracy of Self-Evaluations of Performance
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
59
(
5
), pp.
960
970
.
33.
Lenney
,
E.
,
1977
, “
Women's Self-Confidence in Achievement Settings
,”
Psychol. Bull.
,
84
(
1
), pp.
1
13
.
34.
Meehan
,
A. M.
, and
Overton
,
W. F.
,
1986
, “
Gender Differences in Expectancies for Success and Performance on Piagetian Spatial Tasks
,”
Merril-Palmer Q.
,
32
(
1
), pp.
427
441
.
35.
Bornmann
,
L.
,
Rüdinger
,
M.
, and
Daniel
,
H.
,
2007
, “
Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis
,”
J. Inf.
,
1
(
3
), pp.
226
238
.
36.
Pearsall
,
M. J.
,
Ellis
,
A. P. J.
, and
Evans
,
J. M.
,
2008
, “
Unlocking the Effects of Gender Faultlines on Team Creativity: Is Activation Key?
J. Appl. Psychol.
,
93
(
1
), pp.
225
234
.
37.
Hutchison
,
M. A.
,
Follman
,
D. K.
,
Sumpter
,
M.
, and
Bodner
,
G. M.
,
2006
, “
Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of First-Year Engineering Students
,”
J. Eng. Educ.
,
95
(
1
), pp.
39
47
.
38.
Takai
,
S.
, and
Ishii
,
K.
,
2010
, “
The Maximum Resource Allocation for Uncertainty Reduction in a Decision-Analytic Concept Selection
,”
Concurrent Eng.: Res. Appl.
,
18
(
1
), pp.
19
29
.
39.
Amabile
,
T. M.
,
1983
, “
The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
45
(
2
), pp.
357
376
.
40.
Christiaans
,
H.
,
2002
, “
Creativity as a Design Criterion
,”
Creativity Res. J.
,
14
(
1
), pp.
41
54
.
41.
Kudrowitz
,
B. M.
, and
Wallace
,
D.
,
2012
, “
Assessing the Quality of Ideas From Prolific, Early-Stage Product Ideation
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
24
(
2
), pp.
120
139
.
42.
Nelson
,
B. A.
, and
Wilson
,
J. O.
,
2009
, “
Redefining Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness
,”
Des. Stud.
,
30
(
6
), pp.
737
743
.
43.
Shah
,
J. J.
,
Vargas-Hernandez
,
N.
, and
Smith
,
S. M.
,
2003
, “
Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness
,”
Des. Stud.
,
24
(
1
), pp.
111
134
.
44.
Goldschmidt
,
G.
, and
Tatsa
,
D.
,
2005
, “
How Good Are Good Ideas? Correlates of Design Creativity
,”
Des. Stud.
,
26
(
6
), pp.
593
611
.
45.
Gutierrez
,
E.
,
2009
, “
What's a Good Idea? Understanding Evaluation and Selection of New Product Ideas
,”
International Conference on Engineering Design
, Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 24–27, pp.
121
132
.
46.
Van De Van
,
A.
, and
Delbecq
,
A. L.
,
1974
, “
The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes
,”
Acad. Manage. J.
,
17
(
4
), pp.
605
621
.
47.
Beggan
,
J. K.
,
1992
, “
On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
62
(
2
), pp.
229
237
.
48.
Rietzchel
,
E. F.
,
Nijstad
,
B. A.
, and
Stroebe
,
W.
,
2006
, “
Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Groups in Idea Generation and Selection
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
42
(
2
), pp.
244
251
.
49.
Cooper
,
R. G.
, and
Brentani
,
U.
,
1984
, “
Criteria for Screening New Industrial Products
,”
Ind. Mark. Manage.
,
13
(
3
), pp.
149
156
.
50.
Ulrich
,
K. T.
,
Eppinger
,
S. D.
, and
Goyal
,
A.
,
2011
,
Product Design and Development
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
51.
Amabile
,
T.
,
1982
, “
Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensusual Assessment Technique
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
43
(
5
), pp.
997
1013
.
52.
Faul
,
F.
,
Erdfelder
,
E.
,
Lang
,
A. G.
, and
Buchner
,
A.
,
2007
, “
G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences
,”
Behav. Res. Methods
,
39
(
2
), pp.
175
191
.
53.
Eagly
,
A. H.
,
Ashmore
,
R. D.
,
Mikhijani
,
M. G.
, and
Longo
,
L. C.
,
1991
, “
What Is Beautiful Is Good, But…: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
,”
Psychol. Bull.
,
110
(
1
), pp.
109
128
.
You do not currently have access to this content.