IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v18y2002i3p369-374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting games: can game theory win?

Author

Listed:
  • Goodwin, Paul

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodwin, Paul, 2002. "Forecasting games: can game theory win?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 369-374.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:18:y:2002:i:3:p:369-374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-2070(02)00022-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 321-344.
    2. Potters, Jan & van Winden, Frans, 2000. "Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment: Professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 499-522, December.
    3. Gulbrandsen, E. & Skeath, S., 1999. "Would Big Tobacco Have Been Better?: the Social Welfare Implications of Antitrust Action in the Presence of Negative Externalities," Papers 99-07, Wellesley College - Department of Economics.
    4. Lisa Cameron, 1995. "Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia," Working Papers 724, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    5. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    6. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Cameron, Lisa A, 1999. "Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(1), pages 47-59, January.
    8. repec:fth:prinin:345 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shefrin, Hersh, 2002. "Behavioral decision making, forecasting, game theory, and role-play," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 375-382.
    2. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Embroiled in a conflict: who do you call?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 389-395.
    3. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E. & Slonim, Robert L. & Barron, Greg, 2002. "Predictive value and the usefulness of game theoretic models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 359-368.
    4. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.
    5. Valeria Croce & Karl Wöber & John Kester, 2016. "Expert identification and calibration for collective forecasting tasks," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(5), pages 979-994, October.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2002. "Assessing game theory, role playing, and unaided judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 345-352.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "On the Nature of Fair Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 20-26, January.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter & Georg Kirchsteiger, 1997. "Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 833-860, July.
    3. Antonio Filippin & Manuela Raimondi, 2016. "The Patron Game with Heterogeneous Endowments: A Case Against Inequality Aversion," De Economist, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 69-81, March.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Armin Falk, 1999. "Wage Rigidity in a Competitive Incomplete Contract Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 106-134, February.
    5. Sheen S. Levine & Robert Kurzban, 2006. "Explaining clustering in social networks: towards an evolutionary theory of cascading benefits," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2-3), pages 173-187.
    6. Rami Zwick & Xiao-Ping Chen, 1999. "What Price Fairness? A Bargaining Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(6), pages 804-823, June.
    7. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    8. Bardhan, Pranab & Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert, 2000. "Wealth inequality, wealth constraints and economic performance," Handbook of Income Distribution, in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 541-603, Elsevier.
    9. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Reciprocity, Self-Interest and the Welfare State," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 33-53.
    10. Ernst Fehr & Jean-Robert Tyran, 1996. "Institutions and Reciprocal Fairness," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 23, pages 133-144.
    11. D.J. Butler, 2000. "Accounting for Heterogeneous Choices in One-shot Prisoner's Dilemma and Chicken Games," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 00-22, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    12. Gulyás, Attila, 2007. "A méltányosságelmélet alapjai. Modellek és nézőpontok [The foundations of quity theory. Models and viewpoints]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 167-183.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    14. Robert Slonim & Alvin E Roth, 2010. "Learning in High stakes utlimatum and market games. An experiment in the Slovak Republic," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1718, David K. Levine.
    15. David Dickinson, 2000. "Ultimatum decision-making: A test of reciprocal kindness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 151-177, March.
    16. Phadnis, Shardul & Caplice, Chris & Singh, Mahender & Sheffi, Yossi, 2014. "Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm-specific Intuitive Logics scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 122-139.
    17. Felix Oberholzer-Gee & Joel Waldfogel & Matthew White, 2003. "Social Learning and Coordination in High-Stakes Games: Evidence from Friend or Foe," NBER Working Papers 9805, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
    19. Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
    20. Jeffrey Teich & Pekka Korhonen & Hannele Wallenius & Jyrki Wallenius, 2000. "Conducting Dyadic Multiple Issue Negotiation Experiments: Methodological Recommendations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 347-354, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:18:y:2002:i:3:p:369-374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.