This paper contributes to a pedagogical approach to teaching design related to social development by presenting and discussing the technical-solution and design evolution of a simple, everyday product.
There is a need to explore the influence of social developments on approaches to product development and design solutions. It is important that students experience and observe how social conventions influence design. This paper investigates whether the evolution of the mousetrap has been driven by highly pragmatic and ergonomic influences or by certain social developments influencing how the (Western) world behaves towards fundamental questions, such as the issue of death. A case study of mousetraps focuses on what has been a principal solution of mousetrap construction from the first patented trap in the early 1900s to the latest models: a stroke against the neck of mice. How has the evolution of this solution been expressed in the objects? Immaterial values are reflected in the traps, and this case study shows how social norms can outweigh technical and ergonomic considerations in product development.  Describing and analysing the history of the trap and considering relevant theory can have an impact on design students to reflect more on the market and social awareness. Using specific and typical examples from the history of the mousetrap and visually showing how the development of the trap over more than 100 years will contribute to understanding the complex issues involved in simple, everyday objects

Gundersen, Gunnar H.

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives

Exploring the Evolution of the Mousetrap

Open Digital Archive at Oslo and Akershus University College

EPDE2014/260 
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION 
4 & 5 SEPTEMBER 2014, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS 
EXPLORING THE EVOLUTION OF THE MOUSETRAP 
Gunnar GUNDERSEN  
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences 
ABSTRACT  
This paper contributes to a pedagogical approach to teaching design related to social development by 
presenting and discussing the technical-solution and design evolution of a simple, everyday product. 
There is a need to explore the influence of social developments on approaches to product development 
and design solutions. It is important that students experience and observe how social conventions 
influence design. This paper investigates whether the evolution of the mousetrap has been driven by 
highly pragmatic and ergonomic influences or by certain social developments influencing how the 
(Western) world behaves towards fundamental questions, such as the issue of death. A case study of 
mousetraps focuses on what has been a principal solution of mousetrap construction from the first 
patented trap in the early 1900s to the latest models: a stroke against the neck of mice. How has the 
evolution of this solution been expressed in the objects? Immaterial values are reflected in the traps, 
and this case study shows how social norms can outweigh technical and ergonomic considerations in 
product development.  Describing and analysing the history of the trap and considering relevant theory 
can have an impact on design students to reflect more on the market and social awareness. Using 
specific and typical examples from the history of the mousetrap and visually showing how the 
development of the trap over more than 100 years will contribute to understanding the complex issues 
involved in simple, everyday objects. 
Keywords: Anonymous design, simple everyday objects, evolution, influence on the design process  
1 INTRODUCTION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVERYDAY OBJECT 
 
Figure 1. The mousetrap stroke design 
The aim of this paper is to analyse the development of an everyday object: the mousetrap. This device 
has an anonymous design, is often mass produced and is primarily based on the requirements of 
function, simplicity and low cost. The construction of this object consistently follows these principles, 
which makes it transparent and, therefore, an interesting research object. Nothing—not décor or other 
aspects—interferes with the reading of the object. 
A case study of a collection of mousetraps (Gundersen, 2013) described a categorisation of different 
construction principles with different ethical consequences, while this paper presents a case in the case 
study (Yin, 2009) that scrutinize one specific construction principle, the stroke design (Figure 1). 
Throughout human history, people have tried to combat mice, which have been regarded as a 
nuisance. Much time and energy has been devoted to these efforts, as evidenced by the wide variety of 
traps and patents developed for this purpose. 
2  INFLUENCES ON PRODUCT DESIGN  
In this article, it has been made a review of the development of a type of mousetrap from the time it 
was patented to the present day. The principal mousetrap construction solution is called ‘stroke’. Does 
EPDE2014/260 
its evolution reflect aspects of the general social development or only product development in design, 
materials and ergonomics? If there are social influences, how are they visualised in the design, and can 
expressions of certain social beliefs be found? If such relationships exist, what impact do they have for 
teaching design students? This study addresses two different but related issues: first, the technological, 
ergonomic and material aspects of the development of this type of mousetrap construction, and 
second, the social and cultural norms involved. Is there a point at which product development becomes 
more based on the desire to distance oneself from death than, for example, ergonomic advantages for 
the user? In this article, the user is defined as the person who uses the mousetrap to get rid of mice. 
 
2.1 Social conventions and values in design practice 
There is a need to explore the influence of the development of society on approaches to product 
development and design solutions. It is important for students to experience and observe how social 
conventions influence design. What values do designers put into their designs?  
 
2.1 Design students ability to analyse social values and change of norms 
Design students need to gain insight into the social era in which they live and the ability to analyse 
how social values and norms change. Such an understanding will enable them to better practice their 
profession. Along with an ethical consciousness, awareness of social and cultural norms is highly 
important (Hopp & Stephan, 2012). The evolution and changing of these norms will always have a 
certain impact upon the design process (Monö, 1997). Given this background, this study aimed to 
answer the following research questions: How are immaterial values reflected in mousetraps? 
3 METHOD: A CASE WITHIN A CASE STUDY 
An earlier case study of mousetraps identified 11 principle solutions (Gundersen, 2013). This study is 
continue the study by exploring a case within the case study (Yin, 2009). The well-known stroke 
solution was patented around year 1900. This design is the classical mousetrap, based on this 
principles (Tjalve, 1976) but undergoing constant evolution. This solution has used a diversity of 
materials and produce differing levels of ease of use due to technological progress.  
The trap studied is deadly. The most basic ethical dilemma in the world of mousetraps (and all traps in 
general) is whether to make or use a trap that kills or lets mice live. This particular issue is not 
discussed here but was addressed by earlier study (Gundersen, 2013).   
Other questions that can be raised when discussing this principal solution include the technological 
level in the manufacturing. From a use of simple materials and production methods in early models to 
highly advanced technology and manufacturing techniques in the latest examples, ergonomics has a 
persistent concern (Vavik & Øritsland, 1999). 
This review was designed to show the different evolutionary steps in mousetrap models in order to 
answer the research questions for pedagogical purposes. From among the many variations in materials 
and function in examples of the chosen trap design, some distinct models based on the principle of 
death through stroke were selected.  
 
4 FINDINGS: FIVE DISTINCT STEPS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE 
MOUSETRAP 
This case study of mousetraps focuses on what has been a principle solution of mousetrap construction 
from the first patented trap in the early 1900s to the most recent models: a stroke against the neck of 
mice. The documentation shows how the objects express the product evolution. Visual and material 
differences and elements that could have some social significance are pointed out. 
EPDE2014/260 
Table 1. Five versions of the mousetrap stroke design 
  
Stroke. Version 1. England 
Patented in 1894 by 
William C. Hooker.  
To empty the trap, the user 
must lift the clamp. The 
user barely avoids touching 
the dead body. 
  
Stroke. Version 2. 
Norway  
In this model, there is no 
danger of contact with the 
dead animal, although the 
user’s hands are not far 
from the body. The user 
places one hand on the 
lever on the top to lift the 
clamp.  
  
Stroke. Version 3  
Sweden 
This trap gives the user a 
longer distance from the 
dead animal. Pulling the 
lever at the rear releases 
part of the trap, and the 
dead animal falls out. 
  
Stroke. Version 4. 
USA 
The dead animal is not 
visible to the user. Pulling 
the lever behind the ‘house’ 
loosens the dead animal 
and allows it to be removed 
a long distance from the 
user’s hand. 
  
Stroke. Version 5 
USA 
The animal must go inside 
the trap to get to the bait. 
When the trap strikes, it is 
sealed. The user will not 
have visual or any other 
contact with the dead 
animal. The trap is 
discarded after use. 
 
 
EPDE2014/260 
 
Kill & Seal packaging: 
 
‘Even after they’re caught, mice don’t stop 
threatening your family and pets:  
 
A mouse caught in a traditional trap releases 
bodily fluids that could potentially spread 
diseases like Salmonella and even trigger 
asthma attacks.  
 
Mice commonly carry parasites like fleas and 
ticks that can spread serious illnesses, including 
Lyme disease. These parasites will jump from a 
dead mouse to a new host, like kids and pets.  
 
Victor’s Kill N’ Seal mousetrap seals in the 
mouse a parasites to help protect your family 
and pets from these hazards.’ 
 
Figure 2. Kill & Seal packaging for version 5 
 
5 DISCUSSION: WHAT HAS INFLUENCED THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 
OF THE MOUSETRAP? 
This case study of mousetraps explored one principle solution of mousetrap construction from the 
early 1900s to today—a stroke against the neck of mice—and documented how its evolution has been 
expressed in objects. Next, the paper discusses how visual and material differences arise in technology 
over time and how social and cultural norms influence this evolution.  
5.1 Cultural norms related to fundamental issues  
The paper will discuss whether the evolution of the mousetrap has been influenced more by pragmatic 
and ergonomic concerns or by social developments concerning how cultures approach questions 
related to fundamental issues, such as death.  
This study next considers how the development of the mousetrap relates to time and traditions. The 
first version of the mousetrap was influenced not by ergonomics but by pure function (Table 1, 
version1). Eventually, ergonomics and function were integrated in new ways, offering greater usability 
(Table 1, version 2) and the ability to handle the mousetrap without being exposed to danger (Table 1, 
version 5.1). Gradually, the mousetrap evolved with the use of new and more advanced materials, such 
as a combination of plastic with traditional materials. The mousetrap also used metal and more 
advanced methods and materials, which required punching, bending and other, more complex 
production engineering approaches. 
In addition, this study shows how distance between the user and the dead animal has evolved over 
time, increasing in each stage of development (Table 1, versions 1–5). The construction of the most 
recent version of the mousetrap allows the user to avoid handling the dead animal. When the 
mousetrap is activated, it is sealed at the same time, as explained in the Kill & Seal packaging (Figure 
2). This mousetrap design can be seen as an expression of the contemporary aversion to death (Becker, 
1975). This relationship demonstrates that social and cultural norms might have a greater impact on 
product development than purely ergonomic, functionality and material factors. This product 
development is visualised to simplify and clarify the relationship between technology and social 
norms (Figure 3). 
EPDE2014/260 
  
Figure 3. Model of the five versions of the mousetrap stroke design (Table 1) which shows 
the relation between technology and social norms and the extent to which they influence 
product development 
5.2 Cultural denial expressed in product design 
The relationship people have to death has changed in Norwegian culture, according to studies by the 
Norwegian Folk Museum (Seim, 2012). These researchers report that, around 1900 in Norway, post-
mortem portraits were usually taken of the dead, but this tradition disappeared in the middle of that 
century. They explain how this tendency to hide the dead has evolved gradually until that today, one 
does not see the deceased at all, only a white coffin during the funeral. Mousetrap design, too, has 
attempted to avoid the discomfort of associated with direct visual, exposure to death. It is evident that 
ergonomics and usability are no longer the highest priorities in mousetrap design but, rather, avoiding 
close contact with a dead animal, both physical and visual (Table 1, Version 2-5). Cultural diversity 
also affects product design and it’s the relationship to death, for example, the culture in Ghana treats 
death differently  which influence coffin making (Secretan, 2000). Death is more a part of everyday 
life and is not something to hide; coffin-makers exhibit their wares on the street next to car accessory 
stores. In contrast, during the past one hundred years, Western culture has seen a movement to avoid 
exposure to death (Becker, 1975). Ernst Becker states that civilisations adopt symbolic defence 
mechanisms against the certainty of our mortality. The most recent mousetrap model (Table 1, version 
5) can be seen as a sign (Monö, 1997) of discomfort at seeing a dead animal; in this model, social 
norms have outweighed more practical development. The visual packaging displaces and denies of 
EPDE2014/260 
death. In addition, the complex production method requires expensive tools, much non-biodegradable 
material and an intricate assembly work so that the product cannot compensate for the energy put into 
its use.  
5.3 Impact for design students 
By presenting and analysing the history of the mousetrap and relevant theory, this study has presents 
relevance for design students. The development of the mousetrap serves as an example of how social 
attitudes and cultural values change and have a major influence on designers. It is important for 
students to be aware of such issues. They must be able to reflect on these topics in order to function 
optimally in their own contemporary culture. Doing so will enable them to take responsibility for 
influencing their own culture and to reflect on the market and social awareness. The market should 
demand sustainable products, and Papánek argues that social responsibility is central to designers’ 
profession (Papanek, 1971). At the same time, designers must deal with the world as it is and should 
consider market needs. 
 
6 CONCLUSION 
The relations of complex issues to simple, everyday objects have been demonstrated through specific, 
typical and historical examples of this mousetrap construction and a visual illustration of its 
development for over for more than 100 years. The aim of the study was to contribute to the pedagogy 
for design related to social development by presenting and discussing technical-solution and design 
evolution. It has been argued that ideally designers should assume social responsibility (Papanek, 
1971). In this context, this case study shows how social norms outweigh technical and ergonomic 
considerations in product development. The production of a single mousetrap—a sealed coffin for 
only one mouse—with advanced manufacturing and large quantities of many different materials 
demonstrates that, in this case, certain social and cultural norms were the main influences on the 
design process.  
 
REFERENCES 
[1] Becker, E. (1975). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. 
[2] Gundersen, G. H. (2013). Exploring the design of mousetraps Design Education - Growing Our 
Future. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design 
Education (pp. 152-157): The Design Society. 
[3] Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the 
performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up 
successy. [Article]. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9-10), 917-945. doi: 
10.1080/08985626.2012.742326 
[4] Monö, R. (1997). Design for product understanding: the aesthetics of design from a semiotic 
approach. Stockholm: Liber. 
[5] Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: human ecology and social change. New York: 
Pantheon Books. 
[6] Secretan, T. (2000). Buried spirit: Incredible Coffins of Ghana. Japan: Kyoichi Tsuzuki. 
[7] Seim, M. F. (2012). Døden på museum [Death on the museum]. The Norwegian Museum of 
Cultural History.  
[8] Tjalve, E. (1976). Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter : værktøjer for konstruktøren 
[Systematic design of industrial products: tools for the constructor]. København: Akademisk 
Forlag. 
[9] Vavik, T., & Øritsland, T. A. (1999). Menneskelige aspekter i design: en innføring i ergonomi 
[Human factors in design: an introduction to ergonomics]. Trondheim: IDP, NTNU. 
[10] Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research : design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. 
 
 


https://oda.hio.no/jspui/bitstream/10642/2433/1/1160934.pdf

Exploring the Evolution of the Mousetrap

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives

Open Digital Archive at Oslo and Akershus University College