IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v37y2021i4p353-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing M‐Tool: A standardised and inclusive mental model mapping tool

Author

Listed:
  • Karlijn L. van den Broek
  • Sina A. Klein
  • Joseph Luomba
  • Helen Fischer

Abstract

Stakeholder mental model elicitation can produce valuable insights into perceptions of complex systems such as ecosystems, economies, or the climate. These mental models can uncover crucial differences in perceptions between stakeholders and prevalent misunderstandings of the system, which can ultimately contribute to successful resource management. This paper introduces a novel tool to capture mental models: M‐Tool. M‐Tool was designed to be user‐friendly for diverse samples, and standardized to ease aggregation and comparison of mental models. With this tool, participants create influence diagrams with a fixed set of pictograms representing the system variables, and weighted arrows to display their relations. M‐Tool can be used to identify differences or changes in mental models or to co‐produce knowledge with stakeholders and develop strategies to address challenges within the system. This paper describes how to tailor the tool to a research project and discusses how M‐Tool may be suitable for diverse research applications. © 2021 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Karlijn L. van den Broek & Sina A. Klein & Joseph Luomba & Helen Fischer, 2021. "Introducing M‐Tool: A standardised and inclusive mental model mapping tool," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 353-362, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:353-362
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1698
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1698?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forrester, Jay W., 1992. "Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 42-63, May.
    2. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    3. Schaffernicht, Martin & Groesser, Stefan N., 2011. "A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 57-67, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    2. Aguiar, Anaely & Rajah, Jefferson K. & Conway-Moore, Kaitlin & Savona, Natalie & Knai, Cécile & Vlad, Ioana & Samdal, Oddrun & Rutter, Harry & Lien, Nanna & Kopainsky, Birgit, 2025. "Converging perspectives on the processes exacerbating adolescent obesity: An integrative systems approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    3. Vincenzo Vignieri, 2021. "Crowdsourcing as a mode of open innovation: Exploring drivers of success of a multisided platform through system dynamics modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 108-124, January.
    4. H A Akkermans & K E van Oorschot, 2005. "Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 931-941, August.
    5. Angela Dikou, 2024. "Competence in Unsustainability Resolution—A New Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Cassidy, Rachel & Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada & Semwanga, Agnes Rwashana & Binyaruka, Peter & Chalabi, Zaid & Blanchet, Karl & Singh, Neha S. & Maiba, John & Borghi, Josephine, 2021. "Understanding the maternal and child health system response to payment for performance in Tanzania using a causal loop diagram approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    8. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    9. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    10. M H Kunc & J D W Morecroft, 2009. "Resource-based strategies and problem structuring: using resource maps to manage resource systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 191-199, February.
    11. Geeske Scholz & Martina Austermann & Kai Kaldrack & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2015. "Evaluating group model building exercises: a method for comparing externalized mental models and group models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 28-45, January.
    12. Armin Leopold, 2016. "Energy related system dynamic models: a literature review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 231-261, March.
    13. Courtney L. Scherr & Amy A. Ross Arguedas & Hannah Getachew-Smith & Charlotte Marshall-Fricker & Neeha Shrestha & Kayla Brooks & Baruch Fischhoff & Susan T. Vadaparampil, 2020. "A Modern Dilemma: How Experts Grapple with Ambiguous Genetic Test Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 655-668, July.
    14. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    15. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    16. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    17. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    18. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    19. Schaffernicht, Martin F.G. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "The SEXTANT software: A tool for automating the comparative analysis of mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 566-578.
    20. David Rees & Janet Stephenson & Debbie Hopkins & Adam Doering, 2017. "Exploring stability and change in transport systems: combining Delphi and system dynamics approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 789-805, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:353-362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.