DSpace Repository

Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts: Analogy, Game Theory, Unaided Judgement, and Simulation Compared

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Green, Kesten Charles
dc.date.accessioned 2008-07-29T02:28:33Z
dc.date.accessioned 2022-10-20T17:53:18Z
dc.date.available 2008-07-29T02:28:33Z
dc.date.available 2022-10-20T17:53:18Z
dc.date.copyright 2003
dc.date.issued 2003
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/22399
dc.description.abstract There has been surprisingly little research on how best to predict decisions in conflicts. Managers commonly use their unaided judgement for the task. Game theory and a disciplined use of analogies have been recommended. When tested, experts using their unaided judgement and game theorists performed no better than chance. Experts using structured analogies performed better than chance, but the most accurate forecasts were provided by simulated interaction using student role players. Twenty-one game theorists made 98 forecasts for eight diverse conflicts. Forty-one experts in conflicts made 60 solo forecasts using structured analogies and 96 solo forecasts using unaided judgement (a further seven provided collaborative forecasts only) while 492 participants made 105 forecasts in simulated interactions. Overall, one-in-three forecasts by game theorists and by experts who did not use a formal method were correct. Forecasters who used structured analogies were correct for 45 percent and forecasts from simulated interactions were correct for 62 percent of forecasts. Analysis using alternative measures of accuracy does not affect the findings. Neither expertise nor collaboration appear to affect accuracy. The findings are at odds with the opinions of experts, who expected experts to be more accurate than students regardless of the method used. Keywords: accuracy, analogy, conflict, expert opinion, forecasting, game theory, unaided judgement, role playing, simulated interaction, simulation, structured analogies. en_NZ
dc.language en_NZ
dc.language.iso en_NZ
dc.publisher Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
dc.title Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts: Analogy, Game Theory, Unaided Judgement, and Simulation Compared en_NZ
dc.type Text en_NZ
vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis en_NZ
thesis.degree.discipline Management en_NZ
thesis.degree.grantor Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_NZ
thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_NZ

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


My Account