Date of this Version
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.
forecasting, role playing, simulated interactions
Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Assessing Game Theory, Role Playing, and Unaided Judgment. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/55
Date Posted: 14 June 2007
This document has been peer reviewed.