Based on a case study of a collection of a couple of hundred mousetraps this paper presents a systematic categorisation of their principles of technical construction, material consistence and principles of function. This study of mousetraps introduces decision making involving ethical dilemmas, the discussion of intrinsic value of animals of this kind, and finally the user’s need to be comfortable with the process of use. The principle of its technical construction among a large diversity of possible solutions must be chosen on the basis of a set of criteria. Equal for all traps is the demand for inclusive usability and low cost results. This criterion promotes low-tech constructions with high visual transparency. The presentation of the mousetrap study introduces in a way the general connections between material and technical constructions and moral consequences of ethical perspectives. Ethical values are guidelines in the decision making. Together with a categorisation and presentation of technical principles of mousetraps, the graphical design illustrations and text information on the belonging packaging shows in a pedagogical way how it is possible to contribute to complex issues with simple everyday object

Gundersen, Gunnar H.

Open Digital Archive at Oslo and Akershus University College

 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION 
5 & 6 SEPTEMBER 2013, DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DUBLIN, IRELAND 
EXPLORING THE DESIGN OF MOUSETRAPS 
Gunnar H. GUNDERSEN  
Department of Product Design, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applies Sciences 
ABSTRACT  
Based on a case study of a collection of a couple of hundred mousetraps this paper presents a 
systematic categorisation of their principles of technical construction, material consistence and 
principles of function. This study of mousetraps introduces decision making involving ethical 
dilemmas, the discussion of intrinsic value of animals of this kind, and finally the user’s need to be 
comfortable with the process of use. The principle of its technical construction among a large diversity 
of possible solutions must be chosen on the basis of a set of criteria. Equal for all traps is the demand 
for inclusive usability and low cost results. This criterion promotes low-tech constructions with high 
visual transparency. The presentation of the mousetrap study introduces in a way the general 
connections between material and technical constructions and moral consequences of ethical 
perspectives. Ethical values are guidelines in the decision making. Together with a categorisation and 
presentation of technical principles of mousetraps, the graphical design illustrations and text 
information on the belonging packaging shows in a pedagogical way how it is possible to contribute to 
complex issues with simple everyday objects.  
Keywords: Ethical decision making, principles of construction, low-tech mechanical constructions 
1 INTRODUCTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF MOUSETRAPS 
   
Figure 1. The Annunciation Triptych (Meerode Altarpiece). Robert Campin (ca 1375-1444) 
                   The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection 
Mice have been a subject of persecution by mankind in all time [1]. In The Annunciation Triptych by 
Robert Campin in Figure 1, it is shown how Saint Joseph makes a mousetrap in the right panel. “The 
presence on the right panel of Joseph can also be explained in the context of the Incarnation. Joseph 
has made two mousetraps, whose meaning is elucidated by the Augustinian speculation that the 
Incarnation was God's means of ensnaring the devil, much as bait entraps a mouse” (Figure 1). The 
philosopher Augustin used the mousetrap as a metaphor. He wrote “The Lord’s cross was the devil’s 
mousetrap: the bait which caught him was the death of the Lord" [2]. The reason that mouse has been 
persecuted is that the mice compete mainly for food and represent a threat against people if they were 
not combated. It is a global phenomenon and this problem is handled in different ways. An 
overarching choice for eliminating mice is literally a methodical question. What kind of methodical 
solution is preferable? Well known methods are poison, mousetraps, ultrasound, cats or other animals 
which are practical solutions but sometimes controversial in animal welfare in life sciences [3].  
 
152 EPDE 2013
 2 ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN AN EVERYDAY PRODUCT 
The designer Victor Papanek has pointed towards the designers’ influence of the environment [4]. 
From a manufacturers perspective an ethical designer can contribute to strengthen corporate social 
responsibility [5]. From the users perspective they are given different positions to participate or not in 
decisions concerning their impact on their environment. The choice of construction, materials, 
concepts influence these choices which are dependent on available technology and which will have 
consequences for the environment and everyday publics [6]. It is an aim to find down to earth 
examples that can exemplify interdisciplinary challenges where pragmatic solutions can be found 
through bounded rationality [7].  
2.1 Pedagogical perspectives 
With the help of fundamental technical solutions it can be made an illustration of complex ethical 
issues. There is a need to do exercises questions concerning values in all professions [8]. Through the 
practice of research Mc Niff claims that researchers must ask what kind of values they have in their 
practice and the consequences that are created. This is relevant in the role of designer, manufacturer 
and user because ethical choices will have consequences related to the design, sale and use of the 
product [4]. According to Papanek a conscious choice of values will be a prerequisite for future work 
and is always integral factor in the design process. More visual educational materials need to be 
developed in relation to teaching this subject in a practical and understandable way. Therefore, the 
approach in this study is how ethical reflections can be developed in design education through the 
study of ethical dilemmas in the construction of mouse traps. This theme will prepare the student for a 
situation where ethical questions will be a fundamental issue for growth in the future. 
3  METHOD: A CASE STUDY OF A MOUSETRAP COLLECTION 
A case study [9] of a collection of mousetraps is chosen as approach to explore the research question. 
Traps are the base of this collection and the chosen area for the research. The collection have been 
used in discussions of animal welfare in life sciences [3]. People have used a lot of effort and 
creativity to construct different devices for trapping mice, both manufacturer and homemade traps. In 
the US there are more than 40000 patents [1]. There are some general criteria for these constructions. 
All traps have a particular focus on the demand for inclusive usability and low-cost results. This 
criterion promotes low-tech constructions with high visual transparency. The collection consists of a 
couple of hundred mousetraps and this paper presents a systematic categorizing [10] of their principles 
of technical construction, material consistence and principles of function [11]. A part of the collection 
is the packaging, illustrations and instructions for the use of the traps. Further a model of the ethical 
dilemmas is developed for knowledge transfer in design education [12].  
3.1 Ethical dilemma- a choice of the manufacturer, designer or user 
The main principal difference of the traps is the ethical choice between life or death. It is the key 
ethical question/criteria for the designer/constructor to consider in the process of designing a trap. As 
the categorization shows, both solutions are represented in the collection.  The traps have been 
categorized into eleven different groups which all represent different principles in solving the same 
functional problem [11] in this case, how to get rid of mice. The different principles are represented by 
archetypical examples from the collection. Some of the principles are named by the author. The names 
are usually connected to the function or another distinguish feature of the trap.  All of the categories 
use different materials or combinations of materials.  There are also a wide range of variations in form 
and sizes within the same principle. In the collection there are also examples of more than one 
principle are used in the same trap.  
EPDE 2013 153
 4 FINDINGS: ELEVEN CATEGORIES OF  MOUSETRAPS - 
PRINCIPLES AND CONSTRUCTIONS 
Table 1. Eleven construction principles of mousetraps 
 
1 Stroke 
The classic mousetrap 
appeared in the 1890s and was 
patented for the first time i 
USA in 1894 by William C. 
Hooker. Another similar trap 
was patented by John Mast 
(patentnr. 744379) in 1903.  
 
Size: 10X10 cm. 
Height: 1,5 cm  
Material: Wood, metal 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: One specimen 
Effect: Deadly 
Name trap:  “Rapp”   
Manufacturer: Nordenfjeldske 
Børstefabrik A/S 
Origin: Norway 
 
2 Pot 
The same system that is made 
for trapping fish. The entrance 
opening becomes more and 
more narrow and the trapped 
animal can get into the trap 
but will not be able to get out 
again. 
Size: Ø 14 cm 
Height: 10 cm 
Material: Galvanized steel 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: Multiple 
Effect: Living 
Name: “Calotte souris” 
Manufacturer: Unknown, factory 
made 
Origin: France 
 
3 Push 
The mouse has to push a kind 
of door to get into the trap. 
The door locks behind it and 
the mouse cannot escape. 
Size: 10X12 cm 
Height: Varies, in this case 12 cm 
Material: Plastic, metal, glass 
Bait: Yes  
Capacity: This model, one 
specimen. 
Name: “CombiCat” 
Effect: Living 
Manufacturer: Trap Nouvus A/S 
Origin: Denmark 
 
4 Tilt 
The mouse catches itself by its 
own weight. The bait is inside 
the trap and when the mice 
walk on the balanced area it 
will open up the trap and 
return to the closed position 
when the weight of the mouse 
disappears. The trap will then 
be set for the next mouse. 
Size: 27X9 cm 
Height: 10 cm 
Material: Steel, galvanized steel, 
chipboard 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: Multiple 
Effect: Living 
Name: “Godkänt fångstredskap” 
Manufacturer: Unknown, factory 
Origin: Sweden 
 
5 Cage 
This is a traditional animal 
trap. A tensioned spring 
release and trap the mouse 
when the mouse is inside the 
trap and start to eat the bait 
because the bait is connected 
with the release mechanism. 
Size: 9X7 cm 
Height: 6 cm 
Material: Painted steel 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: One mouse 
Effect: Living 
Name: “Mouse trap” 
Manufacturer: Unknown, factory 
made 
Origin: The Philippines 
154 EPDE 2013
  
6 Throttle  
A construction which is made 
for the mouse to hang itself. 
The mouse has to gnaw 
through a thread to get access 
to the bait. The thread holds a 
spring in tension and when the 
thread is broken it release a 
running knot and the mouse 
will be hanged. 
Size: 5X7,5 cm 
Height: Wood part =3 cm. 
Material: Wood, steel, twine (or 
other kind of string) 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: In this case two 
Effect: Deadly 
Name: “Lucifer” 
Manufacturer: Unknown factory  
Origin: France 
 
7 Block weight 
The mouse releases and gets a 
weight when it is underneath 
and get pinched by the heavy 
weight. 
Size: 61X19,5 cm 
Height: 13 cm 
Material: Wood, twine 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: One specimen. 
Effect: Deadly 
Name: “The tie” (name given by 
the author) 
Manufacturer: homemade 
Origin: Norway 
 
8 Glue 
Will make the mice stick to 
the trap when they enter the 
glue coated surface in order to 
get access to the bait. Exists 
with and without bait. 
Size: 11,5X 8,5 (folded together) 
Height: 1,5 cm 
Material: Glue, plastic, bait 
Bait: Yes/No 
Capacity: Multiple 
Effect: Deadly, eventually 
Name: “Stick-em” 
Manufacturer: J.T. 
Eaton&Co.,Inc. 
Origin: USA 
 
9 Balance 
A beer or coke can is prepared 
with a sort of shaft for easy 
spin. The bait is lubricated on 
the can and tempts the mice to 
enter. This trap is usually put 
on the top of a bucket. When 
entering, the can will spin and 
the animal will fall into the 
bucket. 
Size: Ø 6,5 cm 
Height: 11,5 cm 
Material: Steel, aluminum 
Bait: Yes (Peanut butter)  
Capacity: Multiple 
Effect: Living 
Name: ”Spinning Jenny” (name 
given by the author) 
Manufacturer: The author 
Origin: USA, (instruction)  
 
10 Slide 
The trap shoot the mouse into 
a chamber by a shovel in high 
speed and the mouse hits one 
wall. The spring system makes 
it possible for the trap to catch 
several mice in one setting. 
Size: 23X18 cm 
Height: 14 cm 
Galvanized steel, plastic 
Bait: No 
Capacity: Multiple.  
Effect: Presumably deadly 
Name: “Ketch-all” 
Manufacturer: Kness Mfg.Co.,Inc. 
Origin: USA 
 
11 Electric 
The trap works similar to the 
electric chair. The animals 
make a short circuit by 
connecting the metal plates 
inside on the floor of the trap. 
It exists also for multiple 
catches. 
Size: 15X8 cm 
Height: 4 cm 
Material: Plastic, metal, electronic 
Bait: Yes 
Capacity: One specimen.  
Effect: Deadly 
Name: “Victor - electronic 
mousetrap” 
Manufacturer: Woodtream  
Origin: USA 
EPDE 2013 155
 5 DISCUSSION: ETHICAL REFLECTIONS IN DESIGN EDUCATION 
THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF THREE MOUSETRAP PRINCIPLES 
Through a case study of how ethical reflections can be developed in design education through the 
study of ethical dilemmas in the construction of mouse traps a model has been developed [12] (Figure 
2) to illustrate the dilemmas that can appear in different levels. Three different examples of traps are 
discussed in relation to trapping mice alive, where the design, packaging and illustrations can express 
different values in handling the animals.  
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Model of ethical dilemmas concerning 
the design, production and use of mousetraps 
 
Figure 3. Pot trap from France 
 
Figure 4. Pot trap from Cyprus 
5.1 Communication in product semantics in mousetraps 
Figure 3 show a French trap with the opening design presented. Figure 4 is an image of a trap bought 
in Cyprus. Both traps are categorized under category 2, Pot: The French trap (Figure 3) is made of 
galvanized steel, the opening mechanism are two hooks that have to be loosened. The whole bottom of 
the trap will be released, just hanging in a primitive hinge. The other Cyprian trap (Figure 4) with the 
same principal solution is built on a base of chipboard. There is a relatively narrow opening with a 
simple, functional and self-descriptive opening mechanism. It is a kind of door which is easy to lift up 
and let the mice out. Through an analysis based on material and semantics [13] of the use of material 
and the construction it seems like these two give certain guidelines for the destiny of the trapped mice. 
In Figure 3 the user gets a sophisticated message and hints of how to handle the mice, for example to 
kill them by drowning. The message in the semantic signs [13] can be understood through the choice 
of material which is water-resistant. The user is given the opportunity to open up the whole trap and it 
is in fact easier to get rid of dead mice than alive. Figure 4 on the other hand have a material 
combination that prevents the user to put the trap in water, simply because chipboard will dissolve in 
water. The narrow opening also makes it extremely complicated to empty the trap for dead animals.  
One principle, two similar shapes, but with two different guidelines of solution for the user of how to 
deal with the trapped mice, just by the choice of materials and details of the construction.  
                         
Figure 5. Part of user manual, Danish trap Figure 6. Part of user manual, Swedish trap 
5.2 Placement of ethical dilemma  
In the next example (Figure 5) it is entirely up to the user to decide the matter of life and death of the 
animal by suggesting to let the mouse free or to kill it by exhaust. This is a Danish trap of the principle 
no. 3, Push. In this case is the instruction on the package the additional empirical documentation 
which make a basis for the analysis.  The solution raises an ethical dilemma where the manufacturer 
156 EPDE 2013
 transfers the decision of life and death to the user of the trap. Like Pontius Pilatus in Matthews 27:24: 
“Pilate saw that he wasn't getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of 
water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. The 
responsibility is yours!"»[14].  
5.3  Double communication through user manuals 
The last example (Figure 6) is a Swedish trap, a version of category 4, Tilt. This trap is designed to be 
used inside a bucket. In the instruction leaflet the manufacturer in this case quote the Swedish law. 
Such as the required emptying of the trap twice a day and the prohibition against the use of different 
liquids, like water, glycol etc. in the bucket. The manufacturer disclaims any responsibility for how the 
trap is used. There is an illustration on the same leaflet that instructs the use of the trap on the top of a 
bucket. In that illustration is the bucket halfway filled with some sort of liquid. The message is both to 
protect the manufacturer and to inform on how to do, and what to use. This is a kind of double 
communication.  The question is if the real message is to inform the users about possible ways of 
using the trap, rather to inform about the illegality of some specific use.  
5.4 Conclusion: Educational elucidation of ethical dilemmas in design construction 
As a conclusion to the research question the model (figure 2) shows how ethical choices and values in 
the design process can be placed on different levels through the design. Furthermore the practical 
illustrations show how the interplay of material choices and product constructions make semantic 
signs of high impact. This confirms the relevance and presence of the ethical dilemmas in design 
practice [5, 15]. The presentation illustrates in a visual way the ethical dilemmas on different levels 
that designers, manufacturers and users meet.  It is a pedagogical approach to the theme for design 
practitioners. It is a pedagogical way to elucidate ethical dilemmas which can emerge in many levels 
in professional practice [8].  
REFERENCES 
[1] Fredga K. Fällor för råttor, møss och sork [Traps for rats, mice and voles]. Växtskyddsnoticer 
[Plant protection notices]. 1999;63(4):6. 
[2] Augustine SA. On The Victory Over Death/Sin/Devil. In: Bettenson H, editor. The Later 
Christian Fathers, A Selection From the Writings of the Fathers from St Cyril of Jerusalem to St 
Leo the Great Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1977. 
[3] Engeland S, Kjæstad HP, Grøndahl AM, Karlsson A-C, Mejdell CM. Dyrevernmessige 
konsekvenser ved bekjempelse av rotter og mus [Animal welfare consequences in controlling rats 
and mice]: National Veterinary Institute2010. Report No.: 12. 
[4] Papanek V. Design for the real world : human ecology and social change. Frogmore, St Albans, 
Herts: Paladin; 1977. 
[5] Melles G, de Vere I, Misic V. Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line 
to socially responsive and sustainable product design. Codesign-International Journal of 
Cocreation in Design and the Arts. [Article]. 2011;7(3-4):143-54. 
[6] Marres N. Material participation : technology, the environment and everyday publics: 
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. 
[7] Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1981. 
[8] McNiff J. Action research for professional development. Dorset: September Books; 2010. 
[9] Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage; 2009. 
[10] Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design : an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage 
Publications; 2005. 
[11] Tjalve E. Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter : værktøjer for konstruktøren [Systematic 
design of industrial products: tools for the constructor]. København: Akademisk Forlag; 1976. 
[12] Jørgensen K. Videnskabelige arbejdsparadigmer [Scientific work paradigms]: Institut for 
Production, Aalborg Universitet, Denmark; 1992. 
[13] Monö R. Design for product understanding: the aesthetics of design from a semiotic approach. 
Stockholm: Liber; 1997. 
[14] Publishers HB. The Holy Bible. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group; 2010. 
[15] Papanek V. Design for the real world : human ecology and social change. London: Thames & 
Hudson; 1985. 
EPDE 2013 157


Exploring the design of mousetraps

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives

https://oda.hio.no/jspui/bitstream/10642/1698/1/1061679.pdf

Exploring the design of mousetraps

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Digital Archive at Oslo and Akershus University College

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives