Search

Applications for additive manufacturing (AM) continue to increase as more industries adopt the technology within their product development processes. There is a growing demand for designers to acquire and hone their design for AM (DfAM) intuition and generate innovative solutions with AM. Resources that promote DfAM intuition, however, historically default to physical or digitally non-immersive modalities. Immersive virtual reality (VR) naturally supports 3D spatial perception and reasoning, suggesting its intuitive role in evaluating geometrically complex designs and fostering DfAM intuition. However, the effects of immersion on DfAM evaluations are not well-established in the literature. This study contributes to this gap in the literature by examining DfAM evaluations for a variety of designs across modalities using varying degrees of immersion. Specifically, it observes the effects on the outcomes of the DfAM evaluation, the effort required of evaluators, and their engagement with the designs. Findings indicate that the outcomes from DfAM evaluations in immersive and non-immersive modalities are similar without statistically observable differences in the cognitive load experienced during the evaluations. Active engagement with the designs, however, is observed to be significantly different between immersive and non-immersive modalities. By contrast, passive engagement remains similar across the modalities. These findings have interesting implications on how organizations train designers in DfAM, as well as on the role of immersive modalities in design processes. Organizations can provide DfAM resources across different levels of immersion, enabling designers to customize how they acquire DfAM intuition and solve complex engineering problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on malevolent creativity has rarely linked the generation of harmful ideas with their implementation (i.e., malevolent innovation). To explain why people might act upon their malevolently creative ideas, we drew on affective events theory. Specifically, given evidence that aggressive and creative thought events can elicit positive emotions, we argued that generating new and harmful ideas can evoke positive emotional states that make malevolent innovation a more desirable course of action. We first tested our mediational pathway in two studies with different malevolent creativity tasks. Finding only partial support for our predictions in Study 1 (N = 126), but full support in Study 2 (N = 296), we reflected on our study tasks and suspected that our mixed results may have occurred because the target of ideas in Study 2 embodied more human qualities than in Study 1. Thus, we integrated theory on target personification to see if assigning personhood to a target moderated the malevolent creativity-innovation pathway. We tested our updated model in Study 3 (N = 214) and found that the indirect effect of malevolent creativity on the desire to implement ideas (through positive emotions) was indeed conditional upon individuals' personification of a target. Little research has examined why and when people might act upon their malevolently creative (i.e., new and harmful) ideas. Given evidence that aggression and creativity can both arouse positive emotional states, it may be possible that forming malevolently creative ideas can make people feel more positively about implementing them later on. However, our research findings paint a more nuanced picture, suggesting that the emotional link between generating and implementing malevolently creative ideas only occurs when people see their targets as more human-like (i.e., they can assign personhood to their targets). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers and practitioners alike agree that for companies to survive and thrive they must develop and support radical innovation. However, these ideas are complex and risky, and not all succeed. Because of this, decision makers are often left to make hard decisions in terms of which ideas can move on and which are abandoned. The goal of this article was to provide evidence on the impact of individuals' preferences for creativity on the effectiveness of their decision making for radical ideas using principles from signal detection theory (SDT). To do this, we used data from a previous study of 2252 idea evaluations by engineering students and classified these decisions based on SDT to see if we could predict the likelihood of occurrence of hit (correct identification), miss (type 1 error), false alarm (type II error), and correct rejection. The results showed that lower levels of risk tolerance resulted in an increased likelihood that a hit occurred. On the other hand, higher levels of motivation resulted in an increased likelihood of a type I error occurring, or that an individual would more likely neglect a good idea that had a high chance of future success. Finally, increased risk tolerance resulted in an increased likelihood that type II error occurred, or that an individual would expend resources on an idea with limited likelihood of success. The results serve as empirical evidence on decision making in radically innovative tasks and provide a methodology for studying decision making in innovative design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]