Embroiled in a conflict: who do you call?

Commentators' concerns about research reported in Forecasting Decisions in Conflict Situations: A Comparison of Game Theory, Role-Playing, and Unaided Judgment (2002) are addressed. These concerns do not threaten the conclusion that role-playing should be preferred ahead of game theory and unai...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of forecasting Vol. 18; no. 3; pp. 389 - 395
Main Author Green, Kesten Charles
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier 01.07.2002
Elsevier Sequoia S.A
SeriesInternational Journal of Forecasting
Subjects
Conflicts
Criticism
Forecasting
Forecasting techniques
Game theory
Role playing
Simulation
Studies
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Commentators' concerns about research reported in Forecasting Decisions in Conflict Situations: A Comparison of Game Theory, Role-Playing, and Unaided Judgment (2002) are addressed. These concerns do not threaten the conclusion that role-playing should be preferred ahead of game theory and unaided judgment for forecasting decisions in conflicts. Additional evidence is provided, and it is argued that the relative forecasting accuracy of game theory is a legitimate subject for research. Non-forecasting uses for game theory are discussed, and it is suggested that, without forecasting validity, such applications may be ill founded. Replication of the Green research (2002) by game-theory advocates would be valuable. Extending the research with forecasts for more conflicts would allow greater confidence and recommendations to managers.
ISSN:0169-2070
1872-8200
DOI:10.1016/S0169-2070(02)00020-1