Performance in Tangible and in Cognitive Stock-Flow Tasks: Closer Than Expected. (June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Strohhecker, Jürgen; Größler, Andreas
• Other Names: Alessi Stephen guest-editor.; Kopainsky Birgit guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: Simulation & gaming. Volume 46:Number 3/4(2015:Jun./Aug.)
• Page Start: 230
• Page End: 254
• Publication Date: 2015-06
• Subjects: cognitive task -- computerized simulations -- dynamic decision making -- experiment -- hypothesis testing -- individual differences -- manufacturing task -- naturalistic decision making -- paper-based test -- stock-flow failure -- system dynamics -- tangible stock-flow task -- task performance; Social sciences -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Simulation methods -- Periodicals; Game theory -- Periodicals; Sciences sociales -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; Simulation, Méthodes de -- Périodiques; Jeu de rôle -- Périodiques; Éducation; Jeu d'entreprise; Jeu de simulation; Méthode de simulation; Sciences sociales; Théorie des jeux; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 003.3
• DOI: 10.1177/1046878115577160
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1046-8781

Abstract

Background. Most research in the area ofdynamic decision making in general andstock-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 ifstock-flow failures persist innaturalistic decision making environments. Methods. For this purpose, a tangible stock-flowexperiment 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 purelycognitive task (amanufacturing task ). Results. Participants on average didnot significantly performbetter in atangible stock-flow task than in apaper-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 thattangible stock-flow tasks are asdifficult for humans to control as are purelycognitive 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.