A procedure for analyzing hypergames

Takahashi, Masao; Fraser, Niall M.; Hipel, Keith W.

doi:10.1016/0377-2217(84)90268-6

Cited by 36 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wang et al (1987) compare in detail these improvements to the previous hypergame methodologies of Bennett (1977Bennett ( , 1980 and Takahashi et al (1984). In modeling hypergames, ideas such as the order of expectation, types of misperceptions, levels of hypergames, and mapping are rigorously defined.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In particular, they explained how the solution concepts of Fraser & Hipel (1979 can be employed to predict the resolutions or equilibria envisioned by each player as well as the overall equilibria to a hypergame. Following an approach similar to that advocated by Takahashi et al (1984), hypergame analysis has been applied to international trade (Stokes & Hipel, 1983; Stokes et al, 1985), water resource (Okada et al, 1985), bargaining and negotiation , and military Wright et al, 1980;Takahashi et al, 1984) conflicts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Utilizing Bennett's definitions, hypergames have been shown to be useful for modeling sports (Bennett et al, 1980), military (Bennett & Dando, 1979;Said & Hartley, 1982), and business (Giesen & Bennett, 1979;Bennett et al, 1981) disputes. Takahashi et al (1984) developed an operational procedure for conveniently analyzing a hypergame. In particular, they explained how the solution concepts of Fraser & Hipel (1979 can be employed to predict the resolutions or equilibria envisioned by each player as well as the overall equilibria to a hypergame.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeling misperceptions in games

1988

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, a new method, called improved hypergame analysis, is developed for studying a conflict in which one or more players have misunderstood the true nature of the dispute. The method can be used for analyzing disputes having any finite number of participants consisting of individuals, organizations, nations or any kind of societal group. In order to extend the usefulness of hypergame analysis, the new and comprehensive approach is presented by giving the theoretical definitions, mathematical models, and practical procedures for performing a hypergame stability analysis. Because of the improvements to hypergame analysis, a conflict having misperceptions can be rigorously and accurately modeled and the perceived resolutions to the dispute can be properly ascertained.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling misperceptions in games

1988

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inherent advantages of the improved metagame method are that it produces more realistic results than traditional metagame analysis, it is easy to use in practice, and the practitioner does not have to know any of the underlying theory in order to employ the technique. The efficacy of the approach has been supported by a host of real-world applications (Fraser and Hipel, 1979a;Shupe et al, 1980;Fraser, 1981;Fraser et al, 1983;Takahashi et al, 1983;Savich et al, 1983;Kuhn et al, 1983;Meleskie et al, 1982;Stokes and Hipel, 1983). Furthermore, Kilgour et al (1983) have clearly demonstrated from a theoretical viewpoint that the improved metagame analysis method can readily model a conflict with any finite number of players and options.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Dynamic Modelling of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Fraser

Hipel

1982

Conflict Management and Peace Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lootsma (1989) proposed a pairwise comparison method to evaluate possible deals between two parties in conflict wherein both parties resorted to representatives to compare concessions made by the adversary and by his own party. Other tools such as forecasting (Takahashi, 1984), graph theory and decision analysis (Hamouda et al, 2004) and fuzzy logic and game theory (Badredine, 2006) have all been suggested by researchers to resolve disputes.…”

Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Support Systems For Strategic Dispute Resolution

Agarwal

Ramamoorti

Jayaraman

2011

IJMIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disputes and lawsuits are quite common in business and are often a source of significant liabilities. We conjecture that measurement challenges and lack of adequate analysis tools have greatly inhibited the ability of the General Counsels offices in selecting the best mode for the resolution (i.e. litigation vs. out-of-court settlement) of business conflicts and disputes. Easily quantified direct costs (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses related to pursuing and defending against litigation) tend to be considered, whereas the more difficult-to-quantify indirect risks and costs (e.g., damaged relationships with customers and potential alliance partners, including reputational harm) which may be quite significant, tend to be ignored. We also hypothesize that the benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) strategies may have been muted because of the failure to assess the real magnitude of not-easily-quantified indirect risks and costs. We propose two Decision Support Systems (DSSs), one for a macro-level analysis and one for a micro-level (i.e. case by case analysis), to alleviate the measurement and analysis problem. In the proposed DSSs, the underlying decision engine makes use of operations research tools such as decision trees, logic modeling, Monte-Carlo Markov-Chain (MCMC) and fuzzy logic simulations. By providing the means to gather decision-relevant information, especially on difficult-to-measure soft costs, we have attempted to reduce the decision making risk for the General Counsels offices. In the process, we have also furnished some ways to reach more informed assessments to support litigation risk management strategies and decisions.

show abstract

A procedure for analyzing hypergames

Cited by 36 publications

References 16 publications

Modeling misperceptions in games

Modeling misperceptions in games

Dynamic Modelling of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Decision Support Systems For Strategic Dispute Resolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About