Cognitive Style and Field Knowledge in Complex Design Problem-Solving: A Comparative Case Study of Decision Support Systems

  • Yuan Ling Zi Shi
  • Hyunseung Bang
  • Guy Hoffman
  • Daniel Selva
  • So-Yeon YoonEmail author
Conference paper


Cognitive differences between how people perceive and process information have been broadly studied in the fields of education and psychology. Previous findings show that comprehension is optimized when information presentation aligns with the cognitive abilities and preferences of an individual. On the other hand, the possession of field knowledge has also been studied to influence learning outcome and perception. This paper aims to understand the effects of individual’s information processing styles and field knowledge on design decision-making, specifically focusing on designer learning and user experience. Two distinct decision support systems interfaces were developed to better examine the effect using a mixed model design. A total of 48 college students participated in the experimental study and interacted with the two different interfaces of a satellite design system in a randomized order. Analysis results show significant impacts of field knowledge and visual processing style on both learning and user experience. Potential interaction effects with the design support system interface type and cognitive styles were also observed.


  1. 1.
    Power DJ, Sharda R (2000) Supporting business decision-making. In: Decision support systems hyperbook. DSS Resources, Cedar Falls, IA, pp 356–374Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers JL (1996) DeMAID/GA: an enhanced design manager’s aid for intelligent decomposition. In: 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, pp 1497–1504Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Todd P, Benbasat I (1999) Evaluating the impact of DSS, cognitive effort, and incentives on strategy selection. Inf Syst Res 10(4):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benbasat BI (1977) Cognitive style considerations in DSS design. In: Proceedings of a conference on decision support systems, pp 37–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL (1997) Are cognitive styles still in style? Am Psychol 52(7):700–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough D, Cox PW (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Rev Educ Res 47(1):1–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pask G (1976) Styles and strategies of learning. Br J Educ Psychol 46(2):128–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schroeder RG, Benbasat I (1975) An experimental evaluation of the relationship of uncertainty in the environment to information used by decision makers. Decis Sci 6:556–5567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benbasat I, Dexter AS (1982) Individual differences in the use of decision support aids. J Account Res 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crossland MD, Herschel RT, Perkins WC, Scudder JN (2000) The impact of task and cognitive style on decision-making effectiveness using a geographic information system. J Organ End User Comput 12(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis DL, Elnicki RA (1984) User cognitive types for decision support systems. Omega 12(6):601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green GI, Hughes CT (2015) Effects of decision support systems training and cognitive style on decision process attributes. J Manage Inf Syst 3(2):83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramamurthy K, King WR, Premkumar G (1992) User characteristics–DSS effectiveness linkage: An empirical assessment. Int J Man Mach Stud 36(3):469–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huber GP (1983) Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ADO about nothing? Manage Sci 29(5):567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blajenkova O, Kozhevnikov M (2008) The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: theory and measurement. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 49(8):709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiloh S, Salton E, Sharabi D (2002) Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Pers Individ Dif 32(3):415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kozhevnikov M, Kosslyn S, Shephard J (2005) Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Mem Cognit 33(4):710–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Höffler TN, Koć-Januchta M, Leutner D (2017) More evidence for three types of cognitive style: validating the object-spatial imagery and verbal questionnaire using eye tracking when learning with texts and pictures. Appl Cogn Psychol 31(1):109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blajenkova O, Kozhevnikov M, Motes MA (2006) Object-spatial imagery: a new self-report imagery questionnaire. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomas PR, McKay JB (2010) Cognitive styles and instructional design in university learning. Learn Individ Differ 20(3):197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Florance V, Marchionini G (1995) Information processing in the context of medical care. In: Sigir ’95, pp 158–163Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patel AD, Gibson E, Ratner J, Besson M, Holcomb PJ (1998) Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an event-related potential study. J Cogn Neurosci 10(6):717–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonald S, Stevenson RJ (1998) Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 40(1):18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghinea G, Chen SY (2003) The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. Br J Educ Technol 34(4):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen S (2002) A cognitive model for non-linear learning in hypermedia programmes. Br J Educ Technol 33(4):449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayer RE (2002) Multimedia learning. Psychol Learn Motiv 41:85–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell TJF, Chen SY, Macredie RD (2005) The relationship between web enjoyment and student perceptions and learning using a web-based tutorial. Learn Media Technol 30(1):27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bang H, Selva D (2016) iFEED: interactive feature extraction for engineering design. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 international design engineering technical conference & computers and information in engineering conference IDETC/CIE 2016, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pacini R, Epstein S (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Björklund F, Bäckström M (2008) Individual differences in processing styles: validity of the rational-experiential inventory. Scand J Psychol 49(5):139–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan Ling Zi Shi
    • 1
  • Hyunseung Bang
    • 1
  • Guy Hoffman
    • 1
  • Daniel Selva
    • 1
  • So-Yeon Yoon
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations