Date of this Version
International Journal of Forecasting
Can game theory aid in forecasting the decision making of parties in a conflict? A review of the literature revealed diverse opinions but no empirical evidence on this question. When put to the test, game theorists’ predictions were more accurate than those from unaided judgement but not as accurate as role-play forecasts. Twenty-one game theorists made 99 forecasts
of decisions for six conflict situations. The same situations were described to 290 research participants, who made 207 forecasts using unaided judgement, and to 933 participants, who made 158 forecasts in active role-playing. Averaged across the six situations, 37 percent of the game theorists’ forecasts, 28 percent of the unaided-judgement forecasts, and 64 percent of the role-play forecasts were correct.
Conflict, expert opinion, forecasting, game theory, judgement, role-playing, simulation
Green, K., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement. International Journal of Forecasting, 18 (3), 321-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(02)00025-0
Date Posted: 27 November 2017
This document has been peer reviewed.