Thesis
Drawing the wrong conclusions : cognitive conflict and biases of dual-process theory in conceptual product design
- Creator
- Rights statement
- Awarding institution
- University of Strathclyde
- Date of award
- 2026
- Thesis identifier
- T18068
- Person Identifier (Local)
- 202081089
- Qualification Level
- Department, School or Faculty
- Abstract
- Design cognition research has long recognised the importance of intuitive and analytic reasoning in design, yet the field continues to face persistent challenges regarding theoretical advancement and impact in this area. Specifically, there is a lack of alignment of design cognition with established ontological and methodological standards, limited design-specific instruments grounded in established cognitive theory, and limited integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. This thesis addresses these challenges by adapting dual-process theory (DPT) from cognitive psychology to the study of conceptual design. Dual-process theory categorises cognition into two types of processing: Type 1 which is intuitive, autonomous processing, and Type 2 which is analytic processing that burdens limited executive cognitive resources (i.e. working memory). In particular, little is known about how individual differences in dual-processing constructs shape design behaviour, or how such differences can be measured in a way that is both theoretically grounded and ecologically relevant to design practice. Building on the default–interventionist account of DPT, this research proposes a novel theory of cognitive conflict in design grounded in the Function–Behaviour–Structure (FBS) framework. This FBS conflict theory conceptualises design conflict as arising from mismatches between intuitive and analytic interpretations of function, behaviour, and structure. This thesis undertakes a cycle of theory building and theory testing across two descriptive studies. Descriptive Study I operationalised this theory through a novel psychometric instrument - the Design Conflict Test (DCT) - which was developed as a design-specific version of heuristics-and-biases reasoning tasks from cognitive psychology. Designed to elicit and measure design-specific dual-processing tendencies, the DCT combines visual design stimuli with multiple-choice responses to induce intuitive lure answers and opportunities for analytic override. In this study (n=23), designers were asked to complete the DCT and other psychometric tests (the Cognitive Reflection Test, and a working memory capacity test). Eye-tracking and feelings-of-rightness measures were used alongside performance data to examine whether the test engages cognitive mechanisms consistent with dual-process theory. Results indicated that the DCT elicits cognitive conflict and engages both intuitive and analytic processing, while remaining independent of working-memory capacity. However, divergence from predicted correlations with the Cognitive Reflection Test highlighted both the design-specific nature of the construct and the need for further item refinement. Descriptive Study II investigated how individual differences measured by the DCT manifest in observable design behaviour. Using linkographic analysis of a conceptual design task, designers from the first study (n=6) positioned across scores on the DCT and Cognitive Reflection Test were examined. The findings revealed distinct process patterns consistent with dual-process theory, including behaviours aligned with the fundamental heuristic bias and the fundamental analytic bias. These results demonstrated that design-specific dual-processing tendencies can be meaningfully linked to real design activity. Overall, the thesis demonstrates that dual-process constructs can be meaningfully adapted to design cognition when grounded in design-relevant theory and methods. While the DCT remains a prototype requiring refinement, the work establishes a credible empirical and theoretical foundation for measuring design-specific dual-processing tendencies and connecting them to real design activity. The strengths, limitations, and opportunities for future research are discussed, with particular emphasis on refining psychometric instruments, extending investigation across expertise levels, and advancing mixed-method approaches to design cognition research.
- Advisor / supervisor
- Hay, Laura
- Wodehouse, Andrew
- Resource Type
- DOI
- Funder
Relations
Items
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Visibility | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
PDF of thesis T18068 | 2026-06-15 | Public | Download |