Assessing Game Theory, Role Playing, and Unaided Judgment

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Penn collection
Marketing Papers
Degree type
Discipline
Subject
forecasting
role playing
simulated interactions
Funder
Grant number
License
Copyright date
Distributor
Related resources
Contributor
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.

Advisor
Date Range for Data Collection (Start Date)
Date Range for Data Collection (End Date)
Digital Object Identifier
Series name and number
Publication date
2002-05-28
Journal title
Volume number
Issue number
Publisher
Publisher DOI
Journal Issue
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
Recommended citation
Collection