IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v8y2002i3d10.1023_a1020754729112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenge Versus Exchange in Collective Decision Making: A Comparison of Two Simulation Models Based on Simulated Data

Author

Listed:
  • Marjolein Achterkamp

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

In collective decision making, actors can use different influence strategies to get their way. Differences in influence strategies may, or may not, be connected to differences in collective outcomes. This research studies two influence strategies: the exchange strategy and the challenge strategy. In the existing literature, these strategies are analyzed and compared using simulation models in which actor behavior regarding influence attempts based on one of the strategies is modeled explicitly. Until now, these models have been tested only empirically on limited data sets. However, a theoretical test is necessary to gain more precise insights in the effect of characteristics of collective decision making situations on the collective outcomes. In the present research, computer simulations are used in a structured comparison of two competing models (the iterative exchange model and challenge model). The analyses show that the outcomes of both models are captured for a large part in the actor characteristics on the issues. Besides this, the expected directions of challenges and exchanges play a major part in explaining the outcomes of the models. This research shows that the use of simulated data allows a structured search of the input space, which led to new insights into the iterative exchange model and challenge model, and therefore in the exchange strategy and the challenge strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjolein Achterkamp, 2002. "Challenge Versus Exchange in Collective Decision Making: A Comparison of Two Simulation Models Based on Simulated Data," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 171-196, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:8:y:2002:i:3:d:10.1023_a:1020754729112
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1020754729112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1020754729112
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1020754729112?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ray, James Lee & Russett, Bruce, 1996. "The Future as Arbiter of Theoretical Controversies: Predictions, Explanations and the End of the Cold War," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 441-470, October.
    2. Maurice Rojer, 1999. "Collective Decision-Making Models Applied To Labor Negotiations In The Netherlands: A Comparison Between An Exchange Model And A Conflict Model," Rationality and Society, , vol. 11(2), pages 207-235, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 2004. "Decision-Making Models, Rigor and New Puzzles," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 125-138, March.
    2. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 1998. "The End of the Cold War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 131-155, April.
    3. Detlef F. Sprinz & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Steffen Kallbekken & Frans Stokman & Håkon Sælen & Robert Thomson, 2016. "Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 172-187.
    4. T E van der Lei & W A H Thissen, 2009. "Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1198-1206, September.
    5. Gleditsch Kristian Skrede, 2017. "Ornithology and Varieties of Conflict: A Personal Retrospective on Conflict Forecasting," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(4), pages 1-4, December.
    6. René Torenvlied & Robert Thomson, 2003. "Is Implementation Distinct from Political Bargaining?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(1), pages 64-84, February.
    7. Javier Arregui & Frans Stokman & Robert Thomson, 2004. "Bargaining in the European Union and Shifts in Actors’ Policy Positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-72, March.
    8. Steven C. Poe & Nicolas Rost & Sabine C. Carey, 2006. "Assessing Risk and Opportunity in Conflict Studies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 484-507, August.
    9. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 2011. "A New Model for Predicting Policy Choices," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(1), pages 65-87, February.
    10. Michael M. Bechtel & Dirk Leuffen, 2010. "Forecasting European Union politics: Real-time forecasts in political time series analysis," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 309-327, June.
    11. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 2003. "Ruminations on Challenges to Prediction with Rational Choice Models," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(1), pages 136-147, February.
    12. Ellen Lust-Okar & A.F.K. Organski, 2002. "Coalitions and Conflict: the Case of the Palestinian-Israeli Negotiations Over the West Bank," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(2), pages 23-58, September.

    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:spr:comaot:v:8:y:2002:i:3:d:10.1023_a:1020754729112. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.