Premium
Critique and comment
Author(s) -
Roby Thornton B.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
behavioral science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.371
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1099-1743
pISSN - 0005-7940
DOI - 10.1002/bs.3830050307
Subject(s) - normative , game theory , realism , decision theory , bridge (graph theory) , power (physics) , epistemology , process (computing) , conflict resolution , computer science , psychology , management science , sociology , mathematical economics , social science , economics , philosophy , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics , microeconomics , operating system
The success of game theory in providing rigorous normative solutions to decision‐making problems does not hide the fact that some realism has been sacrificed in the process. Proposed here is an interesting idea that an auxiliary concept—a common sense notion of commitment—can be used to bridge the gap between the normative formulation and typical behavioral processes in decision making. Perhaps several such concepts can be identified in the hope that a realistic and rounded framework for decision making can be developed without discarding the rigor and power of theoretical results already achieved. For other treatments of game theory in behavioral science, the reader is referred to the January, 1959 issue of Behavioral Science for an article by Anatol Rapoport entitled “Critiques of Game Theory,” and to an article by T. C. Schelling named “Bargaining, Communication, and Limited War” in the Journal of Conflict Resolution (March, 1957).