IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/nepswp/2011_003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Coping with Conflict:A Dynamic Decision Making Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Kuperman, Ranan

    (University of Haifa)

Abstract

This research investigates how students of political science playing the role of a state leader cope with structural and dynamic complexities of international conflict. This was studied with the aid of an interactive microworld simulator of a fishing dispute, which was designed according to principles of system dynamics. The research question was what type of decision-making patterns characterized subjects who adapted successfully to the challenges posed by the opponent in comparison to subjects who pursued policies that produced suboptimal payoffs. The results of this research suggest two reasons for poor adaptation. First, rather than exploring the consequences of all possible policy options, most subjects had very strong pre-existing policy preferences and were reluctant to abandon them in favor of alternative policies. Second, many subjects did not adequately analyze the statistical data that were required in order to estimate the payoffs. A third possibility that was explored but not sufficiently supported is that decisions were based on satisficing rather than comparing utilities associated with alternative policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuperman, Ranan, 2011. "Coping with Conflict:A Dynamic Decision Making Perspective," NEPS Working Papers 3/2011, Network of European Peace Scientists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:nepswp:2011_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.europeanpeacescientists.org/3_2011.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Corrigenda [Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory]," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1941-1941, December.
    2. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    3. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    4. Grieco, Joseph M., 1988. "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 485-507, July.
    5. Daniel M. Jones & Stuart A. Bremer & J. David Singer, 1996. "Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(2), pages 163-213, September.
    6. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    7. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2005. "Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 142-154, March.
    10. Binmore, K & Shaked, A & Sutton, J, 1985. "Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1178-1180, December.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1347-1374, September.
    13. Gibson, Faison P. & Fichman, Mark & Plaut, David C., 1997. "Learning in Dynamic Decision Tasks: Computational Model and Empirical Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-35, July.
    14. Nancy Kanwisher, 1989. "Cognitive Heuristics and American Security Policy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(4), pages 652-675, December.
    15. Elster, Jon, 1989. "Social Norms and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 99-117, Fall.
    16. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    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. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    2. Sivanathan, Niro & Pillutla, Madan M. & Keith Murnighan, J., 2008. "Power gained, power lost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 135-146, March.
    3. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    4. K. Skylar Powell, 2017. "Understanding ‘Misfits’: Aspirations and Systematic Deviations from Firm-Specific Optimal Multinationality," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 529-544, August.
    5. Holler Manfred J., 2002. "Classical, Modern, and New Game Theory / Klassische, Moderne und Neue Spieltheorie," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 222(5), pages 556-583, October.
    6. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    7. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    8. Li Chen & A. Gürhan Kök & Jordan D. Tong, 2013. "The Effect of Payment Schemes on Inventory Decisions: The Role of Mental Accounting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 436-451, September.
    9. Rebecca M. Guidice & Darryl A. Seale & Daniel McAllister, 2013. "Dynamic Decision Making: Individual Attributes And Behavior in a Challenge Dice Game," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 3(1), pages 299-321, June.
    10. Stephen Martin, 2018. "Behavioral antitrust," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 15, pages 404-454, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Paola Manzini, 2001. "Time Preferences: Do They Matter in Bargaining?," Working Papers 445, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    12. Kuperman Ranan, 2016. "Consequential and Appropriate Decisions in International Conflict: An experiment with students operating a fishing dispute simulator," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(2), pages 131-157, April.
    13. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ancarani, A. & Di Mauro, C. & D'Urso, D., 2013. "A human experiment on inventory decisions under supply uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 61-73.
    15. Leyer, Michael & Schneider, Sabrina, 2021. "Decision augmentation and automation with artificial intelligence: Threat or opportunity for managers?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(5), pages 711-724.
    16. James Fan & Joaquín Gómez-Miñambres, 2020. "Nonbinding Goals in Teams: A Real Effort Coordination Experiment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1026-1044, September.
    17. Prasad Padmanabhan & Wenqing Zhang & Chia-Hsing Huang, 2013. "Mitigating the Impact of Managerial Anchoring: The Case for Management by Committee for Major Corporate Financial Decisions," Multinational Finance Journal, Multinational Finance Journal, vol. 17(3-4), pages 341-369, September.
    18. Yuan, Xuchuan & Nishant, Rohit, 2021. "Understanding the complex relationship between R&D investment and firm growth: A chaos perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 666-678.
    19. Harvey, Michael & Griffith, David & Kiessling, Tim & Moeller, Miriam, 2011. "A multi-level model of global decision-making: Developing a composite global frame-of-reference," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 177-184, April.
    20. Mattos, Enlinson & Rocha, Fabiana & Toporcov, Patricia, 2013. "Programas de incentivos fiscais são eficazes? Evidência a partir da avaliação do impacto do programa nota fiscal paulista sobre a arrecadação de ICMS," Revista Brasileira de Economia - RBE, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil), vol. 67(1), April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    policy preferences; decision making; international conflicts;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ris:nepswp:2011_003. 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: Vincenzo Bove (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepssea.html .

    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.