Volume 18 Issue 3 (July-September 2002)

previous < 9 of 24 > next

Embroiled in a conflict: who do you call?

Green, K.C.
Pages 389-395
Abstract

I address commentators' concerns about the research reported in my paper. These concerns do not threaten the conclusion that role-playing should be preferred ahead of game theory and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts. I provide additional evidence and argument that the relative forecasting accuracy of game theory is a legitimate subject for research. I discuss non-forecasting uses for game theory and suggest that, without forecasting validity, such applications may be ill-founded. Replication of the Green research (Green, K. C. (2002) International Journal of Forecasting 18, 321-344) by game-theory advocates would be valuable. Extending the research with forecasts for more conflicts would allow greater confidence in recommendations to managers. Extensions should aim to increase the variety of conflicts so that managers can match research findings with their own forecasting problems. More data may allow researchers to identify conditions that favour particular forecasting methods and to estimate the effects of variations in conflict descriptions and decision options.

Keywords: Conflict , Evaluation , Expert opinion , Forecasting , Game theory , Judgement , Prediction , Role-playing , Simulated interaction , Simulation
FULL TEXT LINK
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(02)00020-1
ONLINE SUPPLEMENTS
COMMENTSPost a comment