Learning and transfer from a simple dynamic system

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 119-131

  Jensen, Eva ^a,b  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Analytical thinking; Indirect control; Interrelatedness; Intuition; Learning; Transfer

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; CONFLICT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTUITION; LEARNING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; THEORETICAL MODEL; THINKING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); ECOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTUITION; LEARNING; MODELS, THEORETICAL; THINKING; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 15844421947     PISSN: 00365564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00442.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bakken, B. E. (1993). Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments. Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.
2. Berryman, A. A. (1998). Lotka-Volterra model. Retrieved October 2, 2001, from Washington State University, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Department of Entomology website: http://classes.entom.wsu.edu/543/LVmodel.htm
3. Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16, 249-286.
4. Boyce, W. E., & DiPrima, R. C. (1997). Elementary differential equations (6th edn). New York: Wiley.
5. Braine, M. D. S., & O'Brien, D. P. (1998). Mental logic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Brehmer, B. (2004). Microworlds and the circular relation between people and their environment. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6, 73-93.
7. Brehmer, B., & Allard, R. (1991). Dynamic decision making: The effects of task complexity and feedback delay. In J. Rasmussen, B. Brehmer & J. Leplat (Eds.), Distributed decision making: Cognitive models of cooperative work (pp. 319-334). New York: Wiley.
8. Chandler, M. J., & Boutilier, R. G. (1992). The development of dynamic system reasoning. Human Development, 35, 121-137.
9. Chen, Z. (2002). Analogical problem solving: A hierarchical analysis of procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 81-98.
10. Dangerfield, B. C., & Roberts, C. A. (1995). Projecting dynamic behavior in the absence of a model: An experiment. System Dynamics Review, 11, 157-172.
11. Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4, 59-73.
12. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
13. Evans, J. S. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Oxford: Psychology Press.
15. Forrester, J. W. (1987). Lessons from system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 3, 136-149.
16. Forrester, J. W. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In K. B. DeGreene (Ed.), Systems-based approach to policymaking (pp. 199-240). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
17. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
18. Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. London: Oxford University Press.
19. Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.
21. Jensen, E. (2004). (Mis)understanding and learning of feedback relations in a simple dynamic system. Doctoral dissertation. Orebro Studies in Psychology, 3, Orebro University, Sweden.
22. Jensen, E., & Brehmer, B. (2003). Understanding and control of a simple dynamic system. System Dynamics Review, 19, 119-137.
23. Jensen, E., & Brehmer, B. (2005). Why is it so hard to control even a simple dynamic system? Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power. How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
25. Moxnes, E. (1995). Reindrift og beitegrunnlag: En simulator [Reindeer management and pastures: A simulator] (SNF-report No. 83/95). Bergen: SNF.
26. Moxnes, E. (1998a). Not only the tragedy of the commons: Misperceptions of bioeconomics. Management Science, 44, 1234-1248.
27. Moxnes, E. (1998b). Overexploitation of renewable resources: The role of misperceptions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37, 107-127.
28. Moxnes, E. (2000). Not only the tragedy of the commons : Misperceptions of feedback and policies for sustainable development. System Dynamics Review, 16, 325-348.
29. Moxnes, E., Sara, A. N., Solbakken, J. I., & Stenseth, N. C. (1993). Reindrift og beitegrunnlag. En modellanalyse. [Reindeer management and pastures. A model analysis] (SNF-report No. 35/93). Bergen: SNF.
30. Ossimitz, G. (2002). Stock-flow-thinking and reading stock-flow-related graphs: An empirical investigation in dynamic thinking abilities. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy.
31. Putz-Osterloh, W., & Lemme, M. (1987). Knowledge and its intelligent application to problem solving. German Journal of Psychology, 11, 286-303.
32. Rapoport, A. (1975). Research paradigms for the study of dynamic decision behavior. In D. Wendt & C. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability and human decision making. Dordrecht: Reidel.
33. Rihardson, G. P., & Pugh III, A. L. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
34. Rigas, G. (2005). Psychometric intelligence and performance in a dynamic decision environment. Manuscript submitted for publication.
35. Rigas, G., Carling, E., & Brehmer, B. (2002). Reliability and validity of performance measures in microworlds. Intelligence, 30, 463-480.
36. Sa, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497-510.
37. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
38. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Sterman, J. D. (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 301-335.
40. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
41. Sterman, J. D., & Booth Sweeney, L. (2002). Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. System Dynamics Review, 18, 207-240.