Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Group Model Building pp 87–98Cite as

Comparing Participant Support for Different Explanatory Mechanisms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 477 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Operations Research ((BRIEFSOPERAT))

Abstract

Different mechanisms have been proposed to explain cognitive and interpersonal effects of group model building. Five mechanisms were identified as plausible explanations in the context of the cases explored in this book: operator logic; system archetypes; modelling as persuasion; boundary objects; and cognitive bias. This chapter reports on interviews with 30 participants in group model building workshops to examine the relative level of support for each proposed mechanism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Maxwell TA, Richardson GP, Stewart TR (1994) Mental models and dynamic decision making in a simulation of welfare reform. In: Proceedings of the 1994 international system dynamics conference. Chestnut Hill, System Dynamics Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg BL, Lune H (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflicts in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst. Res Behav Sci 29:194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana RY, Delahaye BL, Sekaran U (2001) Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. Wiley, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2013) Rethinking soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley: Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (1980) Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Maani KE, Maharaj V (2003) Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1):21–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehl MR (2006) Quantitative text analysis. In: Eid M, Diener E (eds) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. American Psychology Association, Washington, pp 141–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Petty R, Cacioppo J (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Social Psychol 19:123–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond B (1993) Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. Syst Dyn Rev 9(2):113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP, Andersen DF, Maxwell TA, Stewart TR (1994) Foundations of mental model research. In: Proceedings of the 1994 international system dynamics conference. System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts CW (2000) A conceptual framework for quantitative text analysis. Qual Quant 34(3):259–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA (2011) Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. J Oper Res Soc 62(5):879–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JP (2009) How and under what conditions client learn in system dynamics consulting engagements. Ph.D. thesis. Strathclyde Business School,Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn psychol 5:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM, Rouwette EAJA (2000) Group model building. What does the client think of it now? In: Proceedings of 2000 international system dynamics conference. System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD (2002) Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious. Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Rodney Scott

Authors
  1. Rodney Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney Scott .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scott, R. (2018). Comparing Participant Support for Different Explanatory Mechanisms. In: Group Model Building. SpringerBriefs in Operations Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8959-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation