Assessing Game Theory, Role Playing, and Unaided Judgment

Armstrong, J. Scott (2002): Assessing Game Theory, Role Playing, and Unaided Judgment. Published in: International Journal of Forecasting No. 18 (2002): pp. 345-352.

Abstract

Green's study [Int. J. Forecasting (forthcoming)] on the accuracy of forecasting methods for conflicts does well against traditional scientific criteria. Moreover, it is useful, as it examines actual problems by comparing forecasting methods as they would be used in practice. Some biases exist in the design of the study and they favor game theory. As a result, the accuracy gain of game theory over unaided judgment may be illusory, and the advantage of role-playing over game theory is likely to be greater than the 44% error reduction found by Green. The improved accuracy of role-playing over game theory was consistent across situations. For those cases that simulated interactions among people with conflicting roles, game theory was no better than chance (28% correct), whereas role-playing was correct in 61% of the predictions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: forecasting, role playing, simulated interactions, game theory
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C70 - General

References

Armstrong, J. S. (1982). Barriers to scientific contributions: the author's formula. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 197-199.

Armstrong, J. S. (1997a). Why can't a game be more like a business? A review of Co-opetition by Brandenburger and Nalebuff. Journal of Marketing, 61, 92-95.

Armstrong, J. S. (1997b). Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63-84.

Armstrong, J. S. (2001a). Role playing: a method to forecast decisions. In Armstrong, J. S. (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Armstrong, J. S. (2001b). Combining forecasts. In Arm strong, J. S. (Ed.), Principles of forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Armstrong, J. S. (2001c). Evaluating methods. In Arm strong, J. S. (Ed.), Principles of forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Armstrong, J. S., & Hutcherson, P. D. (1989). Predicting the outcome of marketing negotiations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 227-239.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.

Ashton, A. H. (1986). Combining the judgments of experts: how many and which ones? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 405-414.

Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co opetition. New York: Doubleday.

Goodwin, P. (2002). Forecasting games: can game theory win? International Journal of Forecasting, 18, 369- 374.

Green, K. C. (2002). Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role playing and unaided judgment. International Journal of Fore casting, 18, 321-344.

Hogarth, R. M. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40-46.

Libby, R., & Blashfield, R. K. (1978). Performance of a composite as a function of the number of judges. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 121-129.

Remus, W., O'Connor, M., & Griggs, K. (1998). The impact of incentives on the accuracy of subjects in judgmental forecasting experiments. International Journal of Forecasting, 14, 515-522.

Sigall, H., Aronson, E., & van Hoose, T. (1970). The cooperative subject: myth or reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-10.