Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Formal systems engineering approaches to modeling misperceptions and attitudes are employed within the framework of the graph model for conflict resolution to systematically study the War of 1812 between the United States of America and Great Britain in order to provide enhanced insights into the causes of the war. More specifically, relational definitions for preferences, movements and stability concepts are defined for describing the attitudes and associated behavior of decision makers involved in a conflict. To capture misperceptions of decision makers in the War of 1812, attitudes are studied within the structure of a hypergame. Combining attitudes and misperceptions within the paradigm of the graph model furnishes the flexible analytical tool which demonstrates that misunderstanding of attitudes by Great Britain and the United States may have contributed to the outbreak of this nasty war.

Keywords

Attitudes conflict analysis graph model for conflict resolution misperceptions relational stability concepts War of 1812 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Benn, C. (2003). The War of 1812. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Borneman, W. R. (2004). 1812: The War that Forged a Nation. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Burton, P. (1980). The Invasion of Canada. McLelland and Stewart, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Coles, H. L. (1965). The War of 1812. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Fang, L., Hipel, K. W. & Kilgour, D. (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Fort George National Historic Site of Canada (2003). Parks Canada — Fort George National Historic Site of Canada — Learning Experiences — Loyalists. In: Fort George. Available via http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhnnhs/on/fortgeorge/edu/edu10i_E.asp. Cited December 29, 2005
  7. [7]
    Fraser, N. & Hipel, K. W. (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. North-Holland, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Government of Ontario, (2005). The War of 1812 — Setting the Stage. In: Government of Ontario Archives. Available via http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/exhib its/1812/setting_the_stage.htm. Cited January 2, 2006
  9. [9]
    Hamouda, L., Kilgour, D. M. & Hipel, K. W. (2006). Strength of preference in graph models for multiple decision-maker conflicts. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 179: 314–327MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Heidler, D. & Heidler, J. (2002). The War of 1812. Greenwood Press, WestportGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Horsman, R. (1962). The Causes of the War of 1812. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behaviour. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Li, K. W., Kilgour, D.M. & Hipel, K. W. (2005). Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56: 699–707MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. L. & Fang, L. (2004). Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A, 34 (4): 507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Libraries and Archives Canada, (2002). Introduction — War of 1812 — From colony to country: A reader’s guide to Canadian military history. In: Collections Canada. Available via http://www.collectionscanada.ca/military/h13-5001-e.html. Cited January 4, 2006
  16. [16]
    Obeidi, A., Hipel, K. W. & Kilgour, D. M. (2005). The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14 (6): 481–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Nash, J.F., (1950). Equilibrium points in n-player games. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, 36: 48–49MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Nash, J.F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54 (2): 286–295CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Patterson, B. R. (2005). The Generals: Andrew Jackson, Sir Edward Packenham and the Road to the Battle of New Orleans. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Perkins, B. (1961) Prologue to War; England and the United States. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Sears, L.M. (1927). Jefferson and the Embargo. Octagon Books, New York City.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    US Army, (2001). Chapter 6, the War of 1812. In: American Military History. Available via: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm. Cited September 23, 2005
  23. [23]
    Wang, M., Hipel, K.W. & Fraser, N.M. (1988). Modeling misperceptions in games. Behavioral Science, 33 (3): 207–223CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China & Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takehiro Inohara
    • 1
  • Keith W. Hipel
    • 2
  • Sean Walker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Value and Decision ScienceTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations