Munich Personal RePEc Archive

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.

[img]
Preview
PDF
MPRA_paper_81670.pdf

Download (111kB) | Preview

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.

UB_LMU-Logo
MPRA is a RePEc service hosted by
the Munich University Library in Germany.