Submission declined on 4 March 2026 by SocDoneLeft (talk). This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content. LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice. These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies: hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references. unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual. copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations. Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. See the advice page on large language models for more information. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Declined by SocDoneLeft 3 months ago. Last edited by CopyleftEverything 3 months ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

Submission declined on 22 February 2026 by AdobongPogi (talk). This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content. LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice. These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies: hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references. unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual. copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations. Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. See the advice page on large language models for more information. Declined by AdobongPogi 3 months ago.

• Comment: Still shows LLM authorship. WP:AIBOLD for example in every list, or "In a seminal series of experiments" (WP:LLMISM). SocDoneLeft (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Design fixation

Design fixation occurs when individuals, during a design task, become "stuck" on existing ideas or example solutions, often replicating features of those examples even when they are inappropriate or counterproductive to the problem at hand.^[1][2] This adherence severely limits creativity and exploration, resulting in pedestrian or suboptimal design solutions.^[3] The phenomenon can happen very early in the design process, during problem formulation, and can affect both novice and expert designers.^[4][5]

Design fixation is a cognitive bias / phenomenon in which designers exhibit a blind or excessive adherence to a limited set of ideas or concepts during the creative process, which can limit the generation of novel and appropriate solutions.^[6][7] It is considered a measurable barrier in conceptual design, particularly in fields such as Engineering, Architecture, and Industrial Design.^[8] The phenomenon is linked to broader psychological concepts such as functional fixedness and the Einstellung effect, where prior knowledge or exposure to examples can unconsciously constrain problem-solving.^[9][10]

The study of design fixation is rooted in experimental cognitive psychology. Research on fixation in problem-solving dates to the 1930s, with concepts like "functional fixedness" (where problem-solvers are unable to use an object in a novel way) and "mental set" (a situational predisposition to use a previously successful method even when it is not optimal).^[11] The Einstellung effect, first coined in the 1940s, describes the tendency to apply familiar solutions even when better alternatives exist.^[12] Design fixation is viewed as a specific manifestation of these cognitive biases within the context of design activities.^[13][14]

The existence of design fixation has been demonstrated through controlled laboratory experiments. In a seminal series of experiments, Jansson and Smith (1991) gave design problems (e.g., designing a car-mounted bicycle rack, a measuring cup for the blind, a spill-proof coffee cup) to engineering students and professional engineers.^[15] One group was provided with an example solution containing specific features, some of which were flawed. A control group received no example. The results showed that participants exposed to the example incorporated its features, including the flawed ones, into their own designs significantly more often than the control group, confirming the fixation effect.^[16]

Subsequent studies have replicated and extended these findings. For instance, Condoor and LaVoie conducted an experiment where participants were asked to design a toy for a blind child.^[17] The results revealed fixation, as subjects predominantly designed toys requiring hand use, neglected considerations like color (relevant to the purchaser), and failed to consider non-visual senses like hearing comprehensively.^[18] Research has also shown that fixation can occur even when multiple examples are provided and can affect designers across different disciplines and experience levels.^[19][20]

A cognitive model proposed by Condoor and LaVoie explains design fixation as a consequence of how human knowledge is categorically organized.^[21] According to this model, the design process involves two stages:

1. Recognition of the design task: Designers rapidly categorize a new problem based on prototypes (typical examples) stored in memory. This process is configurational and requires less cognitive effort than accessing underlying principles.
2. Development of the design solution: The designer then modifies or adapts the activated prototype to meet new requirements.

Fixation occurs because the core concept behind the prototype often remains unchanged, as accessing the deeper conceptual knowledge is difficult. The designer may focus on superficial configurational details instead of exploring fundamentally different solutions.^[22] This reliance on prototypes leads to pitfalls such as insufficient understanding of customer needs, failure to consider alternative solutions, and a focus on sizing and adaptation over true synthesis.^[23]

While much research is laboratory-based, fixation is also reported in real-world design practice and case studies.^[24] Accounts from professional designers and analyses of historical design projects indicate that fixation can arise from personal experience, convention, technical precedent, or arbitrary early decisions that go unchallenged.^[25] Experts note that fixation can lead to spaces or products that feel generic and fail to meet user needs effectively.^[26]

Several strategies have been suggested to overcome or avoid design fixation, primarily aimed at encouraging divergent thinking and breaking cognitive sets:

• Delaying exposure to examples: Limiting the review of existing solutions early in the process to prevent premature commitment.^[27]
• Encouraging analogical thinking and defamiliarization: Using analogies from distant domains or asking questions like "what would this look like if it were a forest?" to stimulate novel perspectives.^[28][29]
• Generating multiple concepts: Producing a high quantity of ideas before converging.^[30]
• Incorporating incubation periods: Stepping away from the problem to allow subconscious processing and return with fresh eyes.^[31]
• Being aware of habits and trends: Consciously recognizing and questioning default preferences or industry clichés.^[32]
• Using structured design frameworks that emphasize problem definition and user empathy before solution generation.^[33]

The dominant research methodology in design fixation studies has been controlled laboratory experiments, often using student participants performing short-term, individual design tasks.^[34] This has led to a robust but potentially narrow understanding of the phenomenon. Scholars have called for greater methodological diversity, including qualitative studies, case studies of professional practice, and mixed-method approaches to improve the ecological validity and theoretical integration of fixation research.^[35] A lack of connection between experimental findings and real-world contextual accounts has been noted as a limitation in the field.^[36]

• Anchoring (cognitive bias)
• Beginner's mind (antonym)
• Cognitive bias
• Cognitive inertia
• Conceptual design
• Design management
• Design methods
• Design rationale
• Design research
• Design science
• Design theory
• Design thinking
• Divergent thinking
• Einstellung effect
• Functional fixedness and the candle problem
• Law of the instrument
• Missing square puzzle (a typical Einstellung effect)
• Rigidity (psychology)
• Thinking outside the box
• XY problem

*[[:Category: Cognitive psychology]] *[[:Category: Creativity]] *[[:Category: Design]]