The effectiveness of business simulation exercises in uncovering the interconnectedness of business decisions has been explored in the literature. Little research has been done, however, to quantify empirically how simply identifying connections can change the decision maker’s perceptions and actions. This research exposes the process by which business simulations bring about these changes. Using the semantic differential technique and a one-group pretest-posttest design, tests are conducted to assess perceptual changes in problem characterization and approach induced by participation in a business simulation exercise. The results presented provide quantifiable justification for the use of business simulation exercises to induce targeted change in a decision maker’s mental models. In addition, business simulation designers are offered a powerful feedback tool that allows them to customize decision parameters and confirm the desired participant impact has been achieved.
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (1992). A survey of methods used for evaluating student performance on business simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 490-498.
2.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 323-359.
3.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
Chapman, K. J., & Sorge, C. L. (1999). Can a simulation help achieve course objectives? An exploratory study investigating differences among instructional tools. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 225-230.
5.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
6.
Emory, C. W. (1985). Business research methods. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
7.
Evans, P., & Wurster, T. S. (2000). Blown to bits: How the new economics of information transforms strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
Goosen, K. R. (2001). Purpose and learning benefits of simulations: A design and development perspective. Simulation & Gaming, 32, 21-39.
9.
Gwynne, P. (1995). Let the battle begin. Across the Board, 32, 33-37.
10.
Heise, D. R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 235-253). Chicago: Rand McNally.
11.
Hequet, M. (1995). Games that teach. Training, 32, 53-58.
12.
Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts. Psychology Monographs, 38(123), 1-86.
13.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
14.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16, 307-336.
15.
Klein, G. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138-147). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
Lefebvre, J. R. (1997). The battle for change. Mortgage Banking, 57(4), 1-7.
17.
Lefebvre, J. R., & Scherpereel, C. M. (1998). CYCLOAN. Libertyville, IL: PriSim Business War Games Inc. (Available 150 E. Cook Ave., Suite 4, Libertyville, IL 60048, USA)
18.
McCune, J. C. (1998). The game of business: Managers are learning how to play in the real marketplace through computer simulations. Management Review, 87, 56-58.
19.
McIlvaine, A. R. (1999). Games employees play. Human Resource Executive, 12(2), 37-39.
20.
Nickols, S. A., & Shaw, M. E. (1964). Saliency and two measures of attitude. Psychological Reports, 14, 273-274.
21.
Norris, D. R., & Snyder, C. A. (1980). External validation of simulation games. Simulation & Games, 13, 73-85.
22.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 221-276.
23.
Reibstein, D. J., & Chussil, M. J. (1997). Putting the lesson before the test: Using simulation to analyze and develop competitive strategies. In G. S. Day & D. J. Reibstein (Eds.), Wharton on dynamic competitive strategy (pp. 395-423). New York: John Wiley.
24.
Sherman, E. (1996). The virtual business. Traffic World, 247, 45-46.
25.
Sherman, H., & Schultz, R. (1998). Open boundaries: Creating business innovation through complexity. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
26.
Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (Eds.). (1969). Semantic differential technique: A sourcebook. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
27.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1991). Researching the homeless: The characteristic features and virtues of the case study. In J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), A case for the case study (pp. 148-173). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
28.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). The dance steps get trickier all the time. Fortune, 135, 157-158.
29.
Wilson, J. R., & Condom, P. (1995). Entertainment drives simulation technology. Interavia, Business & Technology, 50, 13-14.
30.
Wolfe, J. (1985). The teaching effectiveness of games in collegiate business courses. Simulation & Games, 12, 23-40.
31.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C. R. (1986). The external validity of a business management game: A five-year longitudinal study. Simulation and Gaming, 17, 45-59.
32.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C. R. (1993). A further study of the external validity of business games: Five-year peer group indicators. Simulation & Gaming, 24, 21-33.
