Tangible Stock/Flow Experiments - Addressing Issues of Naturalistic Decision Making

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.