Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emotions Along the Design Thinking Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Thinking Research

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

Abstract

The creative interaction of a team is where most of the innovation work in organizations happens nowadays. Yet the creative team is an exceptionally messy place in regard to socio-emotional interactions. Working creatively means constantly navigating and negotiating uncertainty and ambiguity, which, apart from constant procedural adaptations, both evokes and needs adequate responses on the socio-emotional level. In this chapter we want to introduce the most important socio-emotional factors for creative teamwork and how the emotional dynamics of the team is shaped by the different phases of the design thinking process. To this end we review automated text analysis of design thinking team meetings as a method to unobtrusively track emotional dynamics throughout the whole design process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We follow Amabile’s canonical innovation model here (1996), establishing creativity as “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for innovation, as well as the clear-cut distinction between studying workplace innovation and individual and group creativity as presented by Anderson et al. (2004), based on West and Farr (1990).

References

  • Alpers, G. W., Winzelberg, A. J., Classen, C., Roberts, H., Dev, P., Koopman, C., & Taylor, C. B. (2005). Evaluation of computerized text analysis in an Internet breast cancer support group. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood – creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 794–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? The Division 10 debate. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 309–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. (2002). The Ripple Effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1(4), 81–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnebekk, G. (2008). Positive affect and negative affect as modulators of cognition and motivation: The rediscovery of affect in achievement goal theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boag, S. (2015). Personality assessment, “construct validity”, and the significance of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A metaanalysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2017). Fluctuating epistemic uncertainty in a design team as a metacognitive driver for creative cognitive processes. CoDesign, Special Issue on Designing Across Cultures, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppersmith, G., Dredze, M., & Harman, C. (2014). Quantifying mental health signals in Twitter. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: From linguistic signal to clinical reality (pp. 51–60).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. a., & Weingart, L. R. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5(November), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). 16 implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1968). New think: The use of lateral thinking in the generation of new ideas. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rooij, A., Corr, P. J., & Jones, S. (2015). Emotion and creativity: Hacking into cognitive appraisal processes to augment creative ideation. In SIGCHI conference on creativity and cognition. Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, F. R. C., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. A. C., Bohmer, R. R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endrejat, P. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Wie könnten wir Organisationsentwicklungen partizipativ gestalten? Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 48(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairchild, J., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). “We’ve got creative differences”: The effects of task conflict and participative safety on team creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 64–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, E., Chen, B., & Bernstein, M. S. (2016). Empath: Understanding topic signals in large-scale text. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems – CHI’16 (pp. 4647–4657).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, C. T. (2012). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelbrich, K. (2007). Innovation und Emotion. Die Funktion von Furcht und Hoffnung im Adoptionsprozess einer technologischen Neuheit für die Kunststoffbranche. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & King, E. B. (2007). Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams: Functions and dysfunctions of group affective tone. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & C. P. Anderson (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 10, pp. 97–124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Litchfield, R. C., & Gilson, P. W. (2015). Creativity in teams: A key building block for innovation and entrepreneurship. In The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 177–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glock, F. (2009). Aspects of language use in design conversation. CoDesign, 5(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goleman, D., & Boyatziz, R. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. (2003). Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 200–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenter, H., van Emmerik, H., Schreurs, B., Kuypers, T., van Iterson, A., & Notelaers, G. (2016). When task conflict becomes personal. Small Group Research, 47(5), 569–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18(2), 135–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality – Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3), 355–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, K., Brodersen, M., & Eisenberg, J. (2004). Workplace affect and workplace creativity: A review and preliminary model. Human Performance, 17, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. H., Tobin, R. M., Massey, A. E., & Anderson, J. A. (2007). Measuring emotional expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. The American Journal of Psychology, 120(2), 263–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalargiros, E. M., & Manning, M. R. (2015). Divergent thinking and brainstorming in perspective: Implications for organization change and innovation. In A. B. Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 293–327). Bingley: Emerald Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. M., Choi, J. N., & Park, O. S. (2012). Intuitiveness and creativity in groups: Cross-level interactions between group conflict and individual cognitive styles. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(9), 1419–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A. J., & van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Team polarity and creative performance in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kröper, M., Fay, D., Lindberg, T., & Meinel, C. (2010). Interrelations between motivation, creativity and emotions in design thinking processes – An empirical study based on regulatory focus theory. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on design creativity (ICDC2010), (November) (pp. 97–104).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuczmarski, T. D. (1996). What is innovation? The art of welcoming risk. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(5), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: How design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 8(1), 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 30(9), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, M. L., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising design exploration as co-evolution: A combined gene approach. In Advances in formal design methods for CAD: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.2 workshop on formal design methods for computer-aided design (pp. 3–30).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maltarich, M. A., Kukenberger, M., Reilly, G., & Mathieu, J. (2016). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group & Organization Management, 42(2), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martelaro, N., Ganguly, S., Steinert, M., & Jung, M. (2015). The personal trait myth: A comparative analysis of the innovation impact of design thinking tools and personal traits Nikolas. In Design thinking research: Understanding innovation (pp. 41–57).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2010). When wanting and fearing go together: The effect of co-occurring social approach and avoidance motivation on behavior, affect, and cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 783–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B. F., Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). The dynamics of micro-conflicts and uncertainty in successful and unsuccessful design teams. Design Studies, 50, 39–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, H. F. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Ansteckungsprozesse in Gruppen: Die Rolle von geteilten Gefühlen für Gruppenprozesse und -ergebnisse. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 47(4), 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, H. F. K., Klonek, F. E., Schneider, K., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group affective tone and team performance: A week-level study in project teams. Frontiers in Communication, 1(November), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltokorpi, V., & Hasu, M. (2014). How participative safety matters more in team innovation as team size increases. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015a). LIWC2015 – Operator’s Manual.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015b). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Pennebaker Conglomerates, Austin, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015c). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peralta, C. F., Lopes, P. N., Gilson, L. L., Lourenço, P. R., & Pais, L. (2015). Innovation processes and team effectiveness: The role of goal clarity and commitment, and team affective tone. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 80–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282–315). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, S. Y. (2006). Shared emotions and group effectiveness: The role of broadening-and-building interactions. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixty-fifth annual meeting of the academy of management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. (1987). The reasoning of designers. Arbeitspapier zum international congress on planning and design theory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS)—A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(1), 12–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehab, H. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies. Learning and Instruction, 35, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y. (2014). Positive group affect and team creativity. Small Group Research, 45(3), 337–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shroyer, K., Turns, J., Lovins, T., Cardella, M., & Atman, C. (2017). Team idea generation in the wild: A view from four timescales. In B. T. Christensen, L. J. Ball, & K. Halskov (Eds.), Analysing design thinking: Studies of cross-cultural co-creation (pp. 521–540). Leiden: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2011). The role of sentiment in information propagation on Twitter—An empirical analysis of affective dimensions in political tweets. In Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney (Australia) (Vol. 38). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis

  • Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66(3), 1047–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. ICWSM, 10(1), 178–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dillen, L. F., & Koole, S. L. (2007). Clearing the mind: A working memory model of distraction from negative mood. Emotion, 7, 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dillen, L. F., Heslenfeld, D. J., & Koole, S. L. (2009). Tuning down the emotional brain: An fMRI study of the effects of cognitive load on the processing of affective images. Neuroimage, 45(4), 1212–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering, Potsdam, Germany

    Benedikt Ewald, Axel Menning, Claudia Nicolai & Ulrich Weinberg

Authors
  1. Benedikt Ewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Axel Menning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudia Nicolai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedikt Ewald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Christoph Meinel

  2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Larry Leifer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ewald, B., Menning, A., Nicolai, C., Weinberg, U. (2019). Emotions Along the Design Thinking Process. In: Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97082-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation