The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether stock/flow failures persist in naturalistic decision making environments. A tangible stock/flow experiment is used in this study, which asks participants to pour a certain amount of water into a glass through a funnel in an as short time as possible. Findings are that people on average do not perform better in a tangible stock/flow task than in a computerized or 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. An implication of this study is that naturalistic stock/flow tasks are as difficult for humans to control as more abstract tasks. Further research should address individual differences between the two modes of task (tangible vs. paper-based). A limitation of this study is the usage of one tangible stock/flow task only. The value of this paper lies in the combination of a standard test with a tangible experiment addressing the same cognitive capabilities.

This is the whole item.

Date created

• 2012 July 22-2012 July 26

Type

• Document

Processing Activity

• Processing documentation available at: https://wiki.albany.edu/display/SCA/Processing+Ingested+Digital+Files

License

• Creative Commons BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International

  
  Contact Us for questions or additional rights.

ITEM CONTEXT

Part of

ab062956a014e30aaf02b44e9d33088e

Scope and Contents

Part of

23d738ba88f8333bc39725f9cb5bd0b8

Scope and Contents

Part of

b90fd81032b7dbf0c9f90f3dc3a33f1c

Scope and Contents

Collection

System Dynamic Society Records

Scope and Contents

Collecting area

• This collection is part of the University Archives