IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v46y2015i3-4p255-269.html

Improving Stock-Flow Reasoning With Verbal Formats

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Fischer
  • Christina Degen
  • Joachim Funke

Abstract

Background. Stock-flow (SF) problems are ubiquitous in nature, ranging from the accumulation of water in a tub to the accumulation of CO 2 in the atmosphere. However, research on SF failure repeatedly demonstrates that people have severe difficulties understanding even the most basic SF problems. Purpose. This study tested the hypothesis that people’s understanding of SF problems depends on the presentation format used. Specifically, we expect SF failure to decrease when avoiding previously used scientific formats comprising coordinate systems and graphs, and SF problems are presented in verbal formats. Method. Participants ( N = 107) solved a range of different SF problems with experimentally varied presentation formats (verbal vs. graphic). We assessed fundamental understanding of graphs and graphical versus verbal production of stocks and in- and outflows. Results. Solution rates show that (a) SF failure is at least partially caused by specifics of the presentation format used previously; (b) fundamental misunderstandings in the construction of graphs can explain previous findings ; and (c) the majority of participants arrived at the correct solution when SF problems were presented verbally. Conclusion. The present study indicates that people are able to solve SF problems when they are presented in accessible formats . This result bears implications for simulation-based learning and assessment , and for the communication of SF problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Fischer & Christina Degen & Joachim Funke, 2015. "Improving Stock-Flow Reasoning With Verbal Formats," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(3-4), pages 255-269, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:46:y:2015:i:3-4:p:255-269
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878114565058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878114565058
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878114565058?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. 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.
    3. John Sterman, 2011. "Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 811-826, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Alessi & Birgit Kopainsky, 2015. "System Dynamics and Simulation/Gaming," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(3-4), pages 223-229, June.

    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. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    3. Erik O. Sterner & Tom Adawi & U. Martin Persson & Ulrika Lundqvist, 2019. "Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 49-67, May.
    4. Erling Moxnes, 2023. "Challenges for sustainability: misperceptions and misleading advice," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 185-206, July.
    5. Andrew Jones & Don Seville & Donella Meadows, 2002. "Resource sustainability in commodity systems: the sawmill industry in the Northern Forest," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 171-204, June.
    6. Gürsu Aşιk & Zerrin Doğança Küçük, 2021. "Metacognition in action as a possible explanation for stock‐flow failure," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 253-282, October.
    7. Guido A. Veldhuis & Dominique Blok & Maaike H.T. de Boer & Gino J. Kalkman & Roos M. Bakker & Rob P.M. van Waas, 2024. "From text to model: Leveraging natural language processing for system dynamics model development," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(3), July.
    8. Tjasa Redek, 2010. "The Economics Of The Fight Against Climate Change," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 19(2), pages 311-329, december.
    9. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    12. Shahzeen Z. Attari & Kelsey Poinsatte-Jones & Kelsey Hinton, 2017. "Perceptions of water systems," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 314-327, May.
    13. Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2012. "Implementing Sustainable Business Strategies," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 547-570, November.
    14. Drew Bush & Renee Sieber & Gale Seiler & Mark Chandler & Gail L. Chmura, 2019. "Bringing climate scientist’s tools into classrooms to improve conceptual understandings," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(1), pages 25-34, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Radboud J. Duintjer Tebbens & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2009. "Priority Shifting and the Dynamics of Managing Eradicable Infectious Diseases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 650-663, April.
    18. Sophie Guy & Yoshihisa Kashima & Iain Walker & Saffron O’Neill, 2013. "Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub: effectiveness of analogy for reasoning about accumulation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 579-594, December.
    19. Xiang Chen, 2011. "Why do people misunderstand climate change? Heuristics, mental models and ontological assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 31-46, September.
    20. Javier A. Calderon-Tellez & Milton M. Herrera & Javier Sabogal-Aguilar & Melisa Tuirán & Sebastian Zapata, 2025. "Systemic Insights for Value Creation in Solar PV Energy Markets: From Project Management to System Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.

    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:255-269. 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.