IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v46y2015i3-4p230-254.html

Performance in Tangible and in Cognitive Stock-Flow Tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Jürgen Strohhecker
  • Andreas Größler

Abstract

Background. Most research in the area of dynamic decision making in general and stock-flow failures in particular is conducted with the help of computerized simulations as task environments or paper-based tasks of simple dynamic systems. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to investigate if stock-flow failures persist in naturalistic decision making environments. Methods. For this purpose, a tangible stock-flow experiment is used. It asks participants to meet a target level of water in a glass by pouring water through a funnel as fast as possible. We then compare their performance with a purely cognitive task (a manufacturing task ). Results. Participants on average did not significantly perform better in a tangible stock-flow task than in a paper-based test of a comparable task. In addition, individual performance in the tangible task cannot be related to performance in a similar paper-pencil stock-flow task. Conclusions. An implication of this study is that tangible stock-flow tasks are as difficult for humans to control as are purely cognitive tasks. Further research should address individual differences between the two task modes (tangible vs. cognitive). A limitation of this study is the usage of only one tangible stock-flow task.

Suggested Citation

  • Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2015. "Performance in Tangible and in Cognitive Stock-Flow Tasks," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(3-4), pages 230-254, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:46:y:2015:i:3-4:p:230-254
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878115577160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878115577160
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878115577160?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. John D. Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, 2002. "Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 207-240, June.
    2. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    3. Erling Moxnes, 1998. "Not Only the Tragedy of the Commons: Misperceptions of Bioeconomics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1234-1248, September.
    4. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    5. Sterman, John & Booth Sweeney, Linda, 2002. "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming," Working papers 4361-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    6. Guala,Francesco, 2005. "The Methodology of Experimental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521618618.
    7. Kishore Sengupta & Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid, 1993. "Alternative Conceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Environments: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 411-428, April.
    8. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    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. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Größler, Andreas, 2013. "Do personal traits influence inventory management performance?—The case of intelligence, personality, interest and knowledge," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 37-50.
    2. Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2012. "Implementing Sustainable Business Strategies," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 547-570, November.
    3. Federico Barnabè, 2015. "Managerial Myopia in Mismanaging Renewable Resources," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(6), pages 763-791, December.
    4. Kristin Asdal & Béatrice Cointe, 2022. "Writing good economics: how texts 'on the move' perform the lab and discipline of experimental economics," Post-Print hal-03429169, HAL.
    5. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    6. Guala, Francesco & Mittone, Luigi, 2010. "Paradigmatic experiments: The Dictator Game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 578-584, October.
    7. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    8. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    9. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    10. Anna Bassi & Kenneth C. Williams, 2014. "Examining Monotonicity and Saliency Using Level- k Reasoning in a Voting Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, February.
    11. Erling Moxnes, 2023. "Challenges for sustainability: misperceptions and misleading advice," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 185-206, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Jürgen Strohhecker, 2016. "Factors influencing strategy implementation decisions: an evaluation of a balanced scorecard cockpit, intelligence, and knowledge," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 89-119, February.
    14. Varun Dutt & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Human control of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 497-518, April.
    15. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Stephen A. Spiller & Nicholas Reinholtz & Sam J. Maglio, 2020. "Judgments Based on Stocks and Flows: Different Presentations of the Same Data Can Lead to Opposing Inferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2213-2231, May.
    17. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    18. Christian Erik Kampmann & John D. Sterman, 2014. "Do markets mitigate misperceptions of feedback?," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(3), pages 123-160, July.
    19. Ana C. Santos, 2011. "Experimental Economics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Arango, Santiago & Moxnes, Erling, 2012. "Commodity cycles, a function of market complexity? Extending the cobweb experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 321-334.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:simgam:v:46:y:2015:i:3-4:p:230-254. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.