IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v32y2016i3-4p309-331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dual-process theory and understanding of stocks and flows

Author

Listed:
  • Arash Baghaei Lakeh
  • Navid Ghaffarzadegan
  • Luis Luna-Reyes

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Arash Baghaei Lakeh & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Luis Luna-Reyes, 2016. "The dual-process theory and understanding of stocks and flows," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(3-4), pages 309-331, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:32:y:2016:i:3-4:p:309-331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sdr.1566
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Liang Qi & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2015. "Mathematical knowledge is related to understanding stocks and flows: results from two nations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(3), pages 97-114, July.
    2. Tarek Abdel-Hamid & Felix Ankel & Michele Battle-Fisher & Bryan Gibson & Gilberto Gonzalez-Parra & Mohammad Jalali & Kirsikka Kaipainen & Nishan Kalupahana & Ozge Karanfil & Achla Marathe & Brian Mart, 2014. "Public and health professionals’ misconceptions about the dynamics of body weight gain/loss," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 58-74, January.
    3. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    4. Arash Baghaei Lakeh & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2015. "Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation?," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 46-65, January.
    5. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    6. Block, Richard A. & Harper, David R., 1991. "Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 188-207, August.
    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. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    2. Hendijani, Rosa, 2021. "The effect of thinking style on dynamic systems performance: The mediating role of stock-flow understanding," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.

    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. Guido A. Veldhuis & Hubert Korzilius, 2017. "Seeing with the Mind: The Relationship Between Spatial Ability and Inferring Dynamic Behaviour from Graphs," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 710-727, November.
    2. Martin F. G. Schaffernicht & Stefan N. Groesser, 2016. "A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 52-81, January.
    3. Florian Kapmeier & Roland Maximilian Happach & Meike Tilebein, 2017. "Bathtub Dynamics Revisited: An Examination of Déformation Professionelle in Higher Education," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 227-249, May.
    4. Gürsu Aşιk & Zerrin Doğança Küçük, 2021. "Metacognition in action as a possible explanation for stock‐flow failure," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 253-282, October.
    5. Kirsten Davis & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Jacob Grohs & Dustin Grote & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh & David Knight & Hesam Mahmoudi & Konstantinos Triantis, 2020. "The Lake Urmia vignette: a tool to assess understanding of complexity in socio‐environmental systems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 191-222, April.
    6. Cleotilde Gonzalez & Liang Qi & Nalyn Sriwattanakomen & Jeffrey Chrabaszcz, 2017. "Graphical features of flow behavior and the stock and flow failure," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    7. Rosa Hendijani, 2021. "Analytical thinking, Little's Law understanding, and stock‐flow performance: two empirical studies," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(2-3), pages 99-125, April.
    8. Liang Qi & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2015. "Mathematical knowledge is related to understanding stocks and flows: results from two nations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(3), pages 97-114, July.
    9. Arash Baghaei Lakeh & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2015. "Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation?," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 46-65, January.
    10. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    11. Martina Curran & Enda Howley & Jim Duggan, 2020. "Stock‐flow thinking: A difficult concept to grasp," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 886-891, November.
    12. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    13. Jalali, Mohammad S. & Rahmandad, Hazhir & Bullock, Sally Lawrence & Lee-Kwan, Seung Hee & Gittelsohn, Joel & Ammerman, Alice, 2019. "Dynamics of intervention adoption, implementation, and maintenance inside organizations: The case of an obesity prevention initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 67-76.
    14. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    15. Hendijani, Rosa, 2021. "The effect of thinking style on dynamic systems performance: The mediating role of stock-flow understanding," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    16. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    17. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    18. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    19. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    20. Varun Dutt & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2013. "Enabling Eco-Friendly Choices by Relying on the Proportional-Thinking Heuristic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:sysdyn:v:32:y:2016:i:3-4:p:309-331. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    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.