設計者的行為表現一直是設計研究的重要議題之一，因為設計者的設計行為將直接影響到設計的結果成功與否。而此研究方向的發展也已歷時多年，然而以目前的研究來看，尚未有方法能釐清相同背景的設計者在設計過程中的行為以及設計結果的差異。因此本研究將嘗試由思考風格的角度去探討受測者設計行為的差異，探究設計者的思考風格是否會影響到設計者的設計行為。
本研究將引用Sternberg 的心理自治理論，由此理論的思考風格分類來看設計者的設計行為是否能歸屬於個別的類目。以此出發，使用Sternberg思考風格問卷的方式選定三位風格明顯且亦為設計新手的工科學生為受測對象，同時建立其背景資料。之後藉由設計實驗紀錄受測者在設計過程中所表現的行為，以口述語意分析來紀錄受測者的設計行為與想法。在實驗資料紀錄完成後，與受測者進行面談以佐證實驗收集的資料。而實驗收集到的資料，則是使用關鍵事件法進行分析，利用行為風格分類，配合設計階段編碼，與Sternberg 所發展出的思考風格特質建立聯結，最後，將實驗分析的結果與設計者的背景資料作對照，加上訪談的資料輔助證明，證明思考風格是否會影響設計中的行為表現。
經由分析的結果彙整，我們發現到三位受測者在功能面的相異風格與行為例如：行政型風格的依循程序傾向；立法型風格以自己的方式來進行設計；司法型風格的喜好分析與評估，加上其他面向的設計風格等等，確實會產生不同的設計行為，影響到設計的最終結果。至於尚未觀察到的風格類別，在未來的的研究將繼續探索其關連性，以期能提升設計者的設計能力與執行設計任務的效益。

The designers’ behavior is one of the important issues in design research. It affects the design results deeply and leads to have successful products or not. But up to now, it is still not clarified why designers with same background would behave differently while in designing. According to this reason, the study is aimed to analyze the design behaviors from viewpoint of thinking styles, and to find out the relation between thinking styles and design behaviors.
In this study, we introduce the “Mental Self-government Theory” of Sternberg as the theory base. Three engineering students deficient in experience in design practice were chosen as the subjects for behavioral observation. Three types of assessment for cross analysis were applied: (a) questionnaire, (b) observation experiment, and (c) interview. The data were collected by using the thinking style questionnaire. In the experiment, subjects were requested to complete a concept design of a design task. Their behaviors were recorded by video according to the verbal protocol method. After each experiment, an interview with the subject was conducted for the purpose of clarifying their design behavior during the experiment. The collected data were analyzed based on the critical incident technique (CIT). The design behaviors of the subjects were sorted into different categories according to the Sternberg’s theory. the analysis results were compared with the questionnaire and the interview result.
In the study we found that different thinking styles affect different behaviors in the design process, and cause different results. The relationship between the
design behaviors and the thinking styles is discussed in this study.

1. Hilton, K.H., “A relationship between thinking styles and design degree student motivation”, Centre of Learning and Teaching of Art and Design Conference: Enhancing curricula, London, April, 2002.
2. 蔡錫錚、林秀芬、葉則亮，「設計者思考風格與設計行為關連性之研究初探」，中國機械工程學會第二十五屆全國學術研討會，高雄，2006。
3. Frankenberger, E., Badke-Schaub, P. and Herbert Birkhofer, Designers, the key to successful product development, Springer, 1998.
4. Nigel, C., Engineering design methods, 159, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1989.
5. Nigel, C., Christiaans, H. and Dorst, K., Analysing design activity, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 1996.
6. William, B.R. and Kenneth, R.B., System design: Behavioral perspectives on designers, tools, and organizations, North-Holland Publishing Co, 1987.
7. Christiaans, H. and Dorst, K., “Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study”, Design Theory and Methodology - DTM92, Vol 42, pp. 131-137, 1992.
8. Suwa, M., Purcell, T. and Gero, J., “Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers'' cognitive actions”, Design Studies, 19(4), pp. 455-83, Oct, 1998.
9. 黃英修，「從專家、風格到創造力的形成過程之認知行為探討」，國立交通大學，土木工程學系博士論文，2004。
10. Atman, C.J., Chimka, J.R., Bursic, K.M. and Nachtmann, H.L., “A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes”, Design Studies, 20(2), pp.131-52, Mar, 1999.
11. Cardella, M.E., Atman, C.J. and Adams, R.S., “Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers”, Design Studies, 27(1), pp. 5-24, Jan, 2006.
12. Kavakli, M., Gero, J.S., “The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers”, Design Studies, 23(1), pp. 25-40, Jan, 2002.
13. Mullins, C.A., Atman, C.J. and Shuman, L.J., “Freshman engineers'' performance when solving design problems”, IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), pp. 281-287, Nov, 1999.
14. Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M. and Blessing, L.T.M., “Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks”, Research in Engineering Design-Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering, 14(1), pp. 1-11, Feb, 2003.
15. Stempfle, J., Badke-Schaub, P., “Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication”, Design Studies, 23(5), pp. 473-496, Sep, 2002.
16. Flanagan, J.C., “The critical incident technique”, Psychological Bulletin, (51), pp. 327-358, 1954.
17. FitzGerald, K., Seale, N.S., Kerins, C.A. and McElvaney, R., “The critical incident technique: A useful tool for conducting qualitative research”, Journal of dental education, 72(3), pp. 299-304, Mar, 2008.
18. Norman, I.J., Redfern, S.J., Tomalin, D.A. and Oliver, S., “Developing flanagan critical incident technique to elicit indicators of high and low quality nursing-care from patients and their nurses”, Journal of advanced nursing, 17(5), pp. 590-600, May, 1992.
19. Bradley, C.P., “Turning anecdotes into data - the critical incident technique”, Family practice, 9(1), pp. 98-103, Mar, 1992.
20. Peeters, M.A.G. and van Tuijl HFJM., “The development of a design behaviour questionnaire for multidisciplinary teams”, Design Studies, 28(6), pp. 623-643, Nov, 2007.
21. Gremler, D.D., “The critical incident technique in service research”, Journal of Service Research, 7(1), pp. 65-89, Aug, 2004.
22. Eisentraut, R. and ?nther, J.G., “Individual styles of problem solving and their relation to representations in the design process”, Design Studies, 18(4), pp. 369-83, Oct, 1997.
23. Herrmann, N., The whole brain business book, McGraw-Hill, February 1, 1996.
24. Sternberg, R.J. and Ruzgis, P., Personality and intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
25. Zhang, L.F. and Sternberg, R.J., “Thinking styles and teachers'' characteristics”, International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), pp. 3-12, Feb, 2002.
26. 周玉霜，「國中教師與學生思考風格及其教學互動之關係」，國立中山大學，教育研究所碩士論文，2000。
27. Groves, K., Vance, C. and Paik, Y., “Linking Linear/Nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making”, Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), pp. 305-25, Jun, 2008.
28. Sternberg, R.J., Thinking styles, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
中譯本：薛絢譯，活用你的思考風格. 1st ed. 天下遠見出版股份有限公司， 1999。
29. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H., Engineering design - A systematic approach, 3rd Edition ed. Springer, 2007.