Why the designer's intended function is central for proper function assignment and artifact conceptualization: Essentialist and normative accounts

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

People tend to think that the function intended by an artifact's designer is its real or proper function. Relatedly, people tend to classify artifacts according to their designer's intended function (DIF), as opposed to an alternative opportunistic function. This centrality of DIF has been shown in children from 6 years of age to adults, and it is not restricted to Western societies. We review four different explanations for the centrality of DIF, integrating developmental and adult data. Two of these explanations are essentialist accounts (causal and intentional essentialism). Two of them are normative accounts (conventional function and idea ownership). Though essentialist accounts have been very influential, we review evidence that shows their limitations. Normative accounts have been less predominant. We review evidence to support them, and discuss how they account for the data. In particular, we review evidence suggesting that the centrality of DIF can be explained as a case of idea ownership. This theory makes sense of a great deal of the existing data on the subject, reconciles contradictory results, links this line of work to other literatures, and offers an account of the observed developmental trend.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)38-50
Number of pages13
JournalDevelopmental Review
Volume41
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Sep 2016

Keywords

  • Artifacts
  • Design
  • Essentialism
  • Function
  • Ownership

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why the designer's intended function is central for proper function assignment and artifact conceptualization: Essentialist and normative accounts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this