TY - GEN
T1 - ECONOMIC VIABILITY VS. RISK MITIGATION
T2 - ASME 2022 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE 2022
AU - Midlick, Mark J.
AU - Gernand, Jeremy M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by ASME.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - In the course of their profession, engineers must often consider not just the technical efficacy of their designs but also how their design decisions influence and are influenced by nontechnical factors. These non-technical factors can include the stated or implicit values of a company culture, the real and/or perceived social pressures from management, and individual perceptions about one's own ethical and professional duties and responsibilities. In the field of Psychology there is a large body of research relating the internal, mental states of individuals to their external behaviors and choices. However, at this time there has been little research into how different psychological states can affect the outcome of specific engineering design decision making by individuals or teams. This study's aim was to begin this research by conducting an experiment to simulate a common constraint in the profession of engineering: allocating a design budget to ensure the project outcome is both profitable and safe. Specifically, this study wanted to measure how the personality trait agreeableness in conjunction with a social primer consisting of a written scenario description conveying the aims of the exercise and the responsibilities of engineers related to an engineering student's decision to favor either profit or safety in a hypothetical design scenario. A total of 141 undergraduate engineering students were recruited to participate in this experiment, which consisted of a computer-based survey and decision-making activity with a total duration of approximately 10 minutes. Results indicated that agreeableness did not relate to primer adherence in a statistically significant way; however participant beliefs about the intention of the experiment did have a statistically significant relationship with their final allocation decisions, a finding that may have implications for the management of engineering design teams, if this research can be replicated in experienced professionally practicing engineers. While not the objective of the experiment, the data show that when participants were given the opportunity to revise their selections, they most commonly revised their allocations away from profit and towards more investment in safety. Whether this is a result of simply a second attempt at the same decision with further reflection or the result of the consideration of information considered after the initial allocation remains to be determined in future research. The results of this study should serve not as conclusive evidence on the effects of trait agreeableness in engineering risk-related decision making but rather as an initial step, or model for how to investigate a potentially valuable, interdisciplinary field of inquiry. Insights from this experiment do hold useful lessons for the next phase of this research.
AB - In the course of their profession, engineers must often consider not just the technical efficacy of their designs but also how their design decisions influence and are influenced by nontechnical factors. These non-technical factors can include the stated or implicit values of a company culture, the real and/or perceived social pressures from management, and individual perceptions about one's own ethical and professional duties and responsibilities. In the field of Psychology there is a large body of research relating the internal, mental states of individuals to their external behaviors and choices. However, at this time there has been little research into how different psychological states can affect the outcome of specific engineering design decision making by individuals or teams. This study's aim was to begin this research by conducting an experiment to simulate a common constraint in the profession of engineering: allocating a design budget to ensure the project outcome is both profitable and safe. Specifically, this study wanted to measure how the personality trait agreeableness in conjunction with a social primer consisting of a written scenario description conveying the aims of the exercise and the responsibilities of engineers related to an engineering student's decision to favor either profit or safety in a hypothetical design scenario. A total of 141 undergraduate engineering students were recruited to participate in this experiment, which consisted of a computer-based survey and decision-making activity with a total duration of approximately 10 minutes. Results indicated that agreeableness did not relate to primer adherence in a statistically significant way; however participant beliefs about the intention of the experiment did have a statistically significant relationship with their final allocation decisions, a finding that may have implications for the management of engineering design teams, if this research can be replicated in experienced professionally practicing engineers. While not the objective of the experiment, the data show that when participants were given the opportunity to revise their selections, they most commonly revised their allocations away from profit and towards more investment in safety. Whether this is a result of simply a second attempt at the same decision with further reflection or the result of the consideration of information considered after the initial allocation remains to be determined in future research. The results of this study should serve not as conclusive evidence on the effects of trait agreeableness in engineering risk-related decision making but rather as an initial step, or model for how to investigate a potentially valuable, interdisciplinary field of inquiry. Insights from this experiment do hold useful lessons for the next phase of this research.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148331543&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85148331543&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1115/IMECE2022-95484
DO - 10.1115/IMECE2022-95484
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85148331543
T3 - ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings (IMECE)
BT - Mechanics of Solids, Structures, and Fluids; Micro- and Nano-Systems Engineering and Packaging; Safety Engineering, Risk, and Reliability Analysis; Research Posters
PB - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Y2 - 30 October 2022 through 3 November 2022
ER -