Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Andy Dong
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Faculty of Architecture, Design and
Planning, University of Sydney, Australia.
andy.dong@usyd.edu.au
Maaike Kleinsmann
Department of Product Innovation Management, Faculty of Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
m.s.kleinsmann@tudelft.nl
Rianne Valkenburg
Partners in Perspective, The Netherlands.
Rianne.valkenburg@partnersIP.com
Abstract
The premise of this paper is that design thinking depends as much on affect-in-
cognition as it does on logical thinking. Affect is a strong factor in regulating
thinking because affect helps us to conditionally and unconditionally value
situations with respect to value codes. Such cognitive behaviour is likely to cross
over into design thinking, since the way designers value the design situation will
influence the designer’s cognitive processing. We seek here to address the role of
affect in designing by understanding the extent to which linguistic displays of
affective processing serve designing ends. By coding design transcripts according to
a formal, linguistic analysis of appraisals, the research indicates that appraisals
provide an affective frame for design propositions. Such frames can be considered
as the part of the design content, which provides designers with critical information
upon which to base subsequent actions and tasks.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we present a formal method of analysis for understanding affect in
the language of design, the language of describing and doing design. The aim of the
method is to create more knowledge about the link between affect and the content
of the design process. Applying the method to the coding of conversations of
designers designing, insights into affective-based regulatory effects on design
thinking are made.
While the emphasis is on the grammar of affective displays in language, the
research draws on hypotheses put forward in neurobiological and psychological
theories of affect. Affect is the neurobiological state incorporating emotion, feelings
and other affective phenomena such as mood and temperament. It is important
here to distinguish between affect, emotions, and the conscious expression of
emotions. According to Davidson et al., “Emotion refers to a relatively brief episode
of coordinated brain, autonomic, and behavioural changes that facilitate a response
to an external or internal event of significance for the organism. Feelings are the
subjective representation of emotions.” (2003). According to the appraisal theory of
emotions, an emotion is a response to an appraised meaning rather than an
objective set of qualitatively different and categorically distinct “emotions” such as
happiness, sadness, and anger. “The emotions people feel are predictable from
their appraisal of their circumstances (and, conversely, their interpretation of the
situation is predictable on the basis of their emotional reactions).” (Ellsworth and
Scherer 2003)
The appraisal theory of emotions finds resonance in both neurobiological
research and the philosophy of emotions. The affective networks in the brain allow
an organism to reference stimuli and behaviours in relation to their survival value;
further, it is believed that affective states help organisms to unconditionally and
conditionally valuate situations (Burgdorf and Panksepp 2006). The output channels
of these emotion centres of the brain connect with the neocortex, the brain area
linked with conscious thought, logical thinking, and language, resulting in reciprocal
and interactive cognitive behaviours. This suggests a tight coupling between the
affective and the logical in thinking.
In the philosophies, the object-relations theorists view emotions as value
judgments ascribed to objects and persons outside of a person’s own control and
which are of importance for the person’s flourishing (Nussbaum 2001). That is, an
emotion is always intentionally directed at an object.
The question, which arises, is the implication of the coupling between affect
and cognition and the correspondence between appraisals and emotions for
research on design thinking. We believe that an affective appraisal, as an
antecedent and participant in emotion, could be indicated by a linguistic appraisal,
the designer’s consciously, linguistically expressed attitude directed toward the
product, process or a person (stimuli). Affective appraisals are grounded on the
designer’s notion of well-being. The notion of well-being is related to the designer’s
aim to produce a successful design work, conditioned by how the designer defines
success. Affective appraisals influence and are influenced by affective states, which
in turn regulate and are regulated by rational cognitive processing (i.e., what is
described as logical thinking or the activity in the neocortex of the brain). The
language of appraisal functions as a dynamic feedback loop between the speaker,
the stimuli, and the other participants. The affective state influences and possibly
determines what is said (linguistic appraisal). In turn, the expression of the
appraisal could influence the affective state of the person who made the appraisal
and the people to whom it was expressed.
We believe that understanding linguistic appraisals can provide a window into
affective processing. Like Love (2001), we believe that affect must be seen as in
cognition, rather than as an “add-on” to rational thinking. Our aim here is to code
publicly available perceived affective processing as linguistic appraisals to draw
attention to the embedded affective-cognitive processing. In coding linguistic
appraisals in design text, we are not merely looking for subjective statements.
Rather, our interest is in how the language of appraisal in design is functioning to
negotiate attitudes toward the design work and the design process. In short,
appraisals serve as a negotiation of attitudes that are conjectured to be embedded
within rational design thinking. Linguistic appraisals are analyzed here as a
resource for understanding the affective in the logical.
3. Using the rules of the TRANSITIVITY [2] system in SFL [1], decide the
appropriate process type: mental (thinking), material (doing), relational
(having, being), existential (existing) or behavioural (behaving).
1152 Angela I don't I don't mean I don't can't I'm carpet manufacturer when
1153 Angela you think of carpet just- just makes ya- oooh I don't know It- erm I
1154 Angela mean it depends where we would have to put it obviously and if its
1155 Angela just a small space or just a centre or by th-the seating I don't know if
1156 Angela that would be the issue but + it frays I've seen it fray dirty trip
1157 Angela hazard ooh er cleaning constantly need to keep it clean
1158 Angela it needs to match up with other things like the kneelers and everything else and
1159 Angela they'd look faded compared to the- so everywhere that I've been
1160 Angela carpets seem to be the- the thing for me as well
Comparison: Here, the designer will appraise by comparing one subject to
another. Extract 2 shows a dialogue between Tony, Paul and Rong-Kai, in which
they discuss the desirability of rechargeable batteries. Rechargeable batteries are
more desirable because they could be recharged using a charger or from the
computer’s USB port. The comparison is signalled by the word whereas.
Both Enumeration and Comparison are combined when the designer really
needs to “drive the point home.” The repetition of “it allows” and “so that” are
rhetorical devices to enumerate the benefits of using the diffuser (“it”).
910 Tony you'd probably use mobile phones to photo photograph the screen
911 Tony these days wouldn't you?
912 Jamie yeah probably
913 Tony [laughs] right
76 Tony now erm technically that's more demanding because energising the entire ( ) (PR-)
77 Tony printout takes time hammers the batteries and its quite a demanding
(PD-)
77 Tony thing to do so technically the stuff where you've got a low percentage fill (PD-)
78 Tony sort of faces and text and things like that is a lot more realisable but if we (PD+)
79 Tony could do that with the media
Tony and Charles join the discussion with other ideas before AJ intervenes
and sets the direction of the brainstorming. Later, Jamie proposes another solution
(stabilizers): “well I guess the easiest way to keep the pen at a right angle would
be to have a set of stabilisers on it” (E1, 154–155). His positive appraisal is
followed by AJ’s positive appraisal of this idea “yeah that’s a good idea” (E1, 158).
Then, the group moves onto the next idea, “I was thinking that a sort of maybe like
a flat base with a sort of universal joint like windsurf mast” (E1, 160-161). Tony
appraises the shape of the “the size of the thing in contact with the paper” as “it
needs to be quite narrow” (E1, 176). Again, this sets the group off into a technical
discussion of the shape despite AJ trying to steer the group “not be too preoccupied
with the shape” (E1, 180-181). As the group continues to discuss this issue and
engineer solutions, Tony appraises the problem that the angle of contact of the pen
with the media as something “that’s going to limit us for the time being” (E1, 260).
This negative appraisal sets the group off onto doing more engineering in relation
to this problem (E1, 266–327). Here, negative affect is indicated by negative
linguistic appraisals, which appear over about 300 lines of continuous design
engineering.
Conversely, positive affective content allows the group to rely on general
knowledge and background experience rather than analyzing the current situation
to make a decision. Extract 5 shows that, the group discusses the design of a staff
room, which could double as a meeting space for large families organizing a
funeral. This section is marked by a series of positive appraisals of the space:
1039 Adrian well last time we spoke you thought it was comfortable to have a space like this
because you said that there might be large families visiting (PD+)
1040 Adrian space like this because you said that there might be large families visiting (PD+)
…. ….
1049 Angela no you can't see them so that's not a that's an issue yeah that's well (PD+)
… …
1055 Angela having tea coffee and lunch and that's so that's quite nice that you (PD+)
… …
1063 Adrian ordinary loos and on the front of house the really posh bit you get lovely views
from both the vestry and the office over the pond and you (PD+)
1064 Adrian get lovely views from both the vestry and the office over the pond and you (PD+)
1178 Chris I think something that looks like a bridge would be well or something
1179 Chris that's solid would be the unfortunately although I can see the benefit
1180 Chris of having I mean I quite like the idea of stepping stones (PD +)
1181 Angela yes I do I like the idea (PD+)
1182 Adrian well if you like it why don't we run with it (PR+) until somebody says you
1183 Adrian don't want to do that
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project
grant DP0557346.
Notes
1. How this could be done is reported in (Eggins 2004, pp. 206-253).
2. In the notational convention of SFL, systems of meaning are capitalized.
References
Bless, H. (2000) The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Forgas, J. P. (ed) Feeling and
Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, pp 201-222, Maison des Sciences de
l'Homme and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Burgdorf, J. and Panksepp, J. (2006) The neurobiology of positive affect, Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(2), pp 173-187.
Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., et al. (eds) (2003) Handbook of affective sciences
[electronic resource]. Series in Affective Science, Oxford University Press, New York.
Eggins, S. (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Continuum
International Publishing Group, London.
Ellsworth, P. C. and Scherer, K. R. (2003) Appraisal Processes in Emotion in Davidson, R.
J., Scherer, K. R. and Goldsmith, H. H. (eds) Handbook of affective sciences
[electronic resource], Oxford University Press, New York.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004) An introduction to functional grammar, Arnold, London.
Love, T. (2001) Concepts and Affects in Computational and Cognitive Models of Designing in
Gero, J. and Maher, M. L. (eds) Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative
Design, pp 3-23, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Martin, J. R. (2000) Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English in Hunston, S. and
Thompson, G. (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of
Discourse, pp 142-175, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001) Upheavals of thought: the intelligence of emotions, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., et al. (1987) The referential structure of the affective lexicon,
Cognitive Science, 11(3), pp 341-364.
Osborn, A. F. (2001) Applied Imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem
solving, Creative Education Foundation Press, Boston, MA.
Solovyova, I. (2003) Conjecture and Emotion: An Investigation of the Relationship Between
Design Thinking and Emotional Content in Cross, N. and Edmonds, E. (eds) Expertise
in Design: Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Creativity and Cognition Studios
Press, Sydney.