Understanding stocks and flows through analogy

Although it has been suggested that people use the wrong cognitive procedures in solving stock and flow (SF) problems, we know little of what these mental procedures are. We present two experiments aimed at demonstrating the influence of analogical reasoning on SF failure. Results of Experiment 1 show that SF failure decreases when people are asked to compare problems that share behavioral similarity (common relations). However, the benefit of behavioral similarity depends on the surface similarity (common superficial object attributes). Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that when the behavioral characteristics of the problems are unknown by the participants, the process of comparing two problems with behavioral similarity improves responses to a subsequent SF problem, regardless of the surface similarity between the problems. Surface similarity helps only when the behavioral similarity between the problems is already known. Implications for training and education in system dynamics are discussed. Copyright © 2011 System Dynamics Society.

[1]  Cleotilde González,et al.  Why don ’ t well-educated adults understand accumulation ? A challenge to researchers , educators , and citizens , 2008 .

[2]  D. Gentner,et al.  Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  David C. Lane,et al.  The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account , 2008 .

[5]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[6]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogy Use in Eighth-Grade Mathematics Classrooms , 2004 .

[7]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  The Illusion of Linearity: Expanding the evidence towards probabilistic reasoning , 2003 .

[8]  John D. Sterman,et al.  Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory , 2000 .

[9]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[10]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , 1994 .

[11]  George P. Richardson,et al.  Problems with causal‐loop diagrams , 1986 .

[12]  L. Verschaffel,et al.  Not Everything Is Proportional: Effects of Age and Problem Type on Propensities for Overgeneralization , 2005 .

[13]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Learning by Analogical Bootstrapping , 2001 .

[14]  Cleotilde González,et al.  Effects of domain experience in the stock–flow failure , 2010 .

[15]  John D. Sterman,et al.  All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist† , 2002 .

[16]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Remedying secondary school students' illusion of linearity: A teaching experiment , 2004 .

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processes and Decision Processes , 1995 .

[18]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Effect of system dynamics education on systems thinking inventory task performance , 2005 .

[19]  Jon R. Star,et al.  Spurious Correlations in Mathematical Thinking , 2001 .

[20]  John D. Sterman,et al.  Does formal system dynamics training improve people's understanding of accumulation? , 2010 .

[21]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Understanding the building blocks of dynamic systems , 2007 .

[22]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Richard Lesh,et al.  The Blocks Task: Comparative Analyses of the Task With Other Proportion Tasks and Qualitative Reasoning Skills of Seventh-Grade Children in Solving the Task , 1992 .

[25]  D. Gentner,et al.  Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training , 2000 .

[26]  L. R. Novick.  Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.