Forecasting Decisions in Conflict Situations: A Comparison of Game Theory, Role-Playing, and Unaided Judgment

24 Pages Posted: 23 Jul 2008

See all articles by Kesten C. Green

Kesten C. Green

University of South Australia - UniSA Business; Ehrenberg-Bass Institute

Date Written: July 13, 2008

Abstract

Can game theory aid in forecasting the decision making of parties in a conflict? A review of the literature revealed diverse opinions but no empirical evidence on this question. When put to the test, game theorists' predictions were more accurate than those from unaided judgment but not as accurate as role-play forecasts. Twenty-one game theorists made 99 forecasts of decisions for six conflict situations. The same situations were described to 290 research participants, who made 207 forecasts using unaided judgment, and to 933 participants, who made 158 forecasts in active role-playing. Averaged across the six situations, 37 percent of the game theorists' forecasts, 28 percent of the unaided-judgment forecasts, and 64 percent of the role-play forecasts were correct.

Keywords: Conflict, Expert opinion, Forecasting, Game theory, Judgement, Role-playing, Simulation

Suggested Citation

Green, Kesten C., Forecasting Decisions in Conflict Situations: A Comparison of Game Theory, Role-Playing, and Unaided Judgment (July 13, 2008). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1159537 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1159537

Kesten C. Green (Contact Author)

University of South Australia - UniSA Business ( email )

GPO Box 2471
Adelaide, SA 5001
Australia
+61 8 83012 9097 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://people.unisa.edu.au/Kesten.Green

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute ( email )

Australia

HOME PAGE: http://www.marketingscience.info/people/KestenGreen.html

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
148
Abstract Views
1,447
Rank
360,208
PlumX Metrics