“Digging for Meaning”: The Effect of a Designer’s Expertise and Intention on Depth of Product Metaphors

REFERENCES

• Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 82–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camac, M. K., & Glucksberg, S. (1984). Metaphors do not use associations between concepts, they are used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(6), 443–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casakin, H. P., & Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: The role of guidance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 105–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 172–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, B., & Schunn, C. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35, 29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cila, N., Borsboom, F., & Hekkert, P. (in press). Determinants of aesthetic preference for product metaphors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Cila, N., Hekkert, P., & Visch, V. (2014). Source selection in product metaphor generation: The effects of salience and relatedness. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 15–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 15–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008). Shaping things: Intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form. Design Studies, 30, 224–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cupchik, G. C. (2003). The “interanimation” of worlds: Creative metaphors in art and design. The Design Journal, 6(2), 14–28.
   Google Scholar
• Farrington-Darby, T. & Wilson, J. R. (2006). The nature of expertise: A review. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 17–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feltovich, P. J., Prietula, M. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–67). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Findeli, A. (1994). Ethics, aesthetics, and design. Design Issues, 10(2), 49–68.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C., Hekkert, P., & Tan, E. (2006). The adaptive value of metaphors. In U. Klein, K. Mellman, & S. Metzger (Eds.), Heuristiken der Literaturwissenschaft: Einladung zu disziplinexternen Perspektiven auf Literatuur (pp. 85–109). Paderborn, Germany: Mentis.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. CHI 2003: New Horizons, 5(1), 233–240.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1), 11–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21, 360–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1541–1558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 222–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. A. Blythe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 18–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazmierczak, E. T. (2003). Design as meaning making: From making things to the design of thinking. Design Issues, 19(2), 45–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the role of experience in the evolution from novice to expert. lnternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 19, 497–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2000). The scope of metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 79–92). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (2008). Meanings and contexts of artifacts. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 353–376). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. E. (1985). Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, R. S., & Chiappe, D. L. (2008). The roles of aptness, conventionality, and working memory in the production of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. Intelligence, 40, 343–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J. (2008a). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J. (2008b). When is metaphor deliberate? In N. L. Johannesson, C. Alm-Arvius, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Stockholm Metaphor Festival (pp. 43–63). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
   Google Scholar
• Van Rompay, T. (2008). Product expression: Bridging the gap between the symbolic and the concrete. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 333–352). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26, 359–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. (1989). Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 413–437). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar