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

24 Pages Posted: 1 Mar 2005

See all articles by Kesten C. Green

Kesten C. Green

University of South Australia - UniSA Business School; Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science

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 judgement 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 judgement, 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-judgement 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 Judgement. International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 18, 321-344, 2002. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=675184

Kesten C. Green (Contact Author)

University of South Australia - UniSA Business School ( 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 for Marketing Science ( email )

Australia

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

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
235
Abstract Views
1,544
rank
136,852
PlumX Metrics