Marketing Papers

Document Type

Journal Article

Date of this Version

May 2002

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.

Comments

Postprint version. Published in International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 18, Issue 3, July 2002, pages 345-352.
Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(02)00024-9

Keywords

forecasting, role playing, simulated interactions

Share

COinS
 

Date Posted: 14 June 2007

This document has been peer reviewed.