IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v9y2003i4d10.1023_bcmot.0000029052.81329.d4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning in Dynamic Decision Making: The Recognition Process

Author

Listed:
  • Cleotilde Gonzalez

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

  • Jose Quesada

    (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Abstract

The apparent difficulty that humans experience when asked to manage dynamic complexity might be related to their inability to discriminate among familiar classes of objects (i.e., flawed recognition). In this study we examined the change in individuals' recognition ability, as measured by the change in the similarity of decisions they made when confronted repeatedly with consistent dynamic situations of varying degrees of similarity. The study generated two primary findings. First, decisions became increasingly similar with task practice, a result that suggests gradually improving discrimination by the participants. Second, the similarity was determined by the interaction of many task features rather than individual task features. The general principles highlighted by this study are applicable to dynamic situations. For example, with practice, decision makers should be able to learn to identify the time at which to intervene to achieve the maximal effect during dynamic decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Cleotilde Gonzalez & Jose Quesada, 2003. "Learning in Dynamic Decision Making: The Recognition Process," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 287-304, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:9:y:2003:i:4:d:10.1023_b:cmot.0000029052.81329.d4
    DOI: 10.1023/B:CMOT.0000029052.81329.d4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000029052.81329.d4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000029052.81329.d4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Gibson, Faison P. & Fichman, Mark & Plaut, David C., 1997. "Learning in Dynamic Decision Tasks: Computational Model and Empirical Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-35, July.
    3. Diehl, Ernst & Sterman, John D., 1995. "Effects of Feedback Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 198-215, May.
    4. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    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. Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2005. "Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 142-154, March.

    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. Faison P. Gibson, 2007. "Learning and transfer in dynamic decision environments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 39-61, March.
    2. Gibson, Faison P., 2000. "Feedback Delays: How Can Decision Makers Learn Not to Buy a New Car Every Time the Garage Is Empty?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 141-166, September.
    3. Faison P. Gibson, 2002. "Is It Better to Forget? Stimulus-Response, Prediction, and the Weight of Past Experience in a Fast-Paced Bargaining Task," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 31-47, May.
    4. John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2009. "An Experimental Analysis of Optimal Renewable Resource Management: The Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 263-285, October.
    5. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    6. Miragliotta, Giovanni & Brun, Alessandro & Soydan, Ilker A., 2009. "Coordinating multi-business sales through management simulators," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 533-549, 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. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter), 1998. "The transition problem in product development," Working papers WP 4036-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2012. "Implementing Sustainable Business Strategies," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 547-570, November.
    10. Atkins, Paul W. B. & Wood, Robert E. & Rutgers, Philip J., 2002. "The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 587-604, July.
    11. Faison P. Gibson, 2003. "Supporting Learning in Evolving Dynamic Environments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 305-326, December.
    12. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    13. John D. Sterman & Rebecca Henderson & Eric D. Beinhocker & Lee I. Newman, 2007. "Getting Big Too Fast: Strategic Dynamics with Increasing Returns and Bounded Rationality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 683-696, April.
    14. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    15. Faison P. Gibson, 2003. "Introduction: Learning in Dynamic, On-Line Environments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 283-285, December.
    16. Sterman, John & Booth Sweeney, Linda, 2003. "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming," Working papers 4361-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. 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.
    18. Hazhir Rahmandad, 2008. "Effect of Delays on Complexity of Organizational Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1297-1312, July.
    19. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter) & Sterman, John., 1997. "Getting quality the old-fashioned way : self confirming attributions in the dynamics of process improvement," Working papers WP 3952-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    20. Auke Hoekstra & Maarten Steinbuch & Geert Verbong, 2017. "Creating Agent-Based Energy Transition Management Models That Can Uncover Profitable Pathways to Climate Change Mitigation," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-23, December.

    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:spr:comaot:v:9:y:2003:i:4:d:10.1023_b:cmot.0000029052.81329.d4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.