IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v95y2021ics221480432100118x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of thinking style on dynamic systems performance: The mediating role of stock-flow understanding

Author

Listed:
  • Hendijani, Rosa

Abstract

Dynamism is an important characteristic of many systems, including those of an economic nature. These systems include stocks (i.e., accumulations) and flows (i.e., inflows and outflows) that change the stock's level. Previous studies show that rational thinking positively influences decision making and performance in dynamic systems. This paper reports on two studies designed to examine whether rational thinking improves performance in dynamic systems both directly and indirectly through stock-flow understanding. An inventory management task known as the near-beer game measures dynamic systems performance. The first study uses two standard gauges of rational thinking: the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) and Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-40). The results of this study support the hypothesis that rational thinking has a significant positive direct effect on performance, as well as a significant indirect effect through stock-flow understanding. The second study uses a one-factor experimental design with three levels for thinking mode manipulation, including rational thinking, intuitive thinking, and control conditions. The results support only an indirect effect in which rational thinking improves stock-flow understanding and, in turn, dynamic systems performance. Taken together, the two studies indicate that rational thinking in chronic and situational forms improves stock-flow understanding and performance in dynamic systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:95:y:2021:i:c:s221480432100118x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2021.101778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221480432100118X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101778?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Größler, Andreas, 2013. "Do personal traits influence inventory management performance?—The case of intelligence, personality, interest and knowledge," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 37-50.
    2. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:20-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Liang Qi & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2019. "Math matters: mathematical knowledge plays an essential role in Chinese undergraduates' stock‐and‐flow task performance," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 35(3), pages 208-231, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Sterman, John & Booth Sweeney, Linda, 2002. "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming," Working papers 4361-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    8. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Anita L. Tucker, 2016. "The Impact of Workaround Difficulty on Frontline Employees’ Response to Operational Failures: A Laboratory Experiment on Medication Administration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1124-1144, April.
    15. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    16. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    17. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:182-191 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Manuel Brauch & Andreas Größler, 2022. "Holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and its relationship to the bullwhip effect," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 121-134, April.
    6. 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.
    7. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    8. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Größler, Andreas, 2013. "Do personal traits influence inventory management performance?—The case of intelligence, personality, interest and knowledge," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 37-50.
    9. Stephen A. Spiller & Nicholas Reinholtz & Sam J. Maglio, 2020. "Judgments Based on Stocks and Flows: Different Presentations of the Same Data Can Lead to Opposing Inferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2213-2231, May.
    10. Haines, Russell & Hough, Jill & Haines, Douglas, 2017. "A metacognitive perspective on decision making in supply chains: Revisiting the behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 7-20.
    11. James Paine, 2023. "Dynamic supply chains with endogenous dispositions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(1), pages 32-63, January.
    12. Jürgen Strohhecker, 2016. "Factors influencing strategy implementation decisions: an evaluation of a balanced scorecard cockpit, intelligence, and knowledge," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 89-119, February.
    13. Tarikere T. Niranjan & Narendra K. Ghosalya & Srinagesh Gavirneni, 2022. "Crying Wolf and a Knowing Wink: A Behavioral Study of Order Inflation and Discounting in Supply Chains," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1071-1088, March.
    14. Christian Erik Kampmann & John D. Sterman, 2014. "Do markets mitigate misperceptions of feedback?," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(3), pages 123-160, July.
    15. Fransoo, Jan C. & Udenio, Maximiliano, 2021. "The bullwhip effect," Other publications TiSEM 382aec81-b3b0-4696-bf00-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. John Sterman, 2011. "Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 811-826, October.
    17. Arango, Santiago & Moxnes, Erling, 2012. "Commodity cycles, a function of market complexity? Extending the cobweb experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 321-334.
    18. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    19. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    20. 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.

    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:eee:soceco:v:95:y:2021:i:c:s221480432100118x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.