Role Playing: A Method to Forecast Decisions

  • J. Scott Armstrong
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 30)

Abstract

Role playing can be used to forecast decisions, such as “how will our competitors respond if we lower our prices?” In role playing, an administrator asks people to play roles and uses their “decisions” as forecasts. Such an exercise can produce a realistic simulation of the interactions among conflicting groups. The role play should match the actual situation in key respects, such as that role players should be somewhat similar to those being represented in the actual situations, and roleplayers should read instructions for their roles before reading about the situation. Role playing is most effective for predictions when two conflicting parties respond to large changes. A review of the evidence showed that role playing was effective in matching results for seven of eight experiments. In five actual situations, role playing was correct for 56 percent of 143 predictions, while unaided expert opinions were correct for 16 percent of 172 predictions. Role playing has also been used successfully to forecast outcomes in three studies. Successful uses of role playing have been claimed in the military, law, and business.

Keywords

Analogies conflict situations decision-making experiments expert opinions game theory intentions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, J. S. (1977), “Social irresponsibility in management,” Journal of Business Research, 5, 185–213. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S. (1987), “Forecasting methods for conflict situations,” in G. Wright and P. Ayton (eds.), Judgmental Forecasting, pp. 157–176. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. S. and P. D. Hutcherson (1989), “Predicting the outcome of marketing negotiations,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton, R. H. and S. S. Krammer (1980), “Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: Some evidence,” Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babcock, L., G. Lowenstein, S. Issacharoff and C. Camerer (1995), “Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining,” American Economic Review, 85, 1337–1343.Google Scholar
  6. Borman, W. C. (1982), “Validity of behavioral assessment for predicting military recruiter performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandenburger, A. M. and B. J. Nalebuff (1996), Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Brief, A. P., J. M. Dukerich and L. I. Doran (1991), “Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busch, G. A. (1961), “Prudent-manager forecasting,” Harvard Business Review, 39, 57–64.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, J. S., M. H. Bazerman and R. Maury (1988), “Negotiator cognition: A descriptive approach to negotiators’ understanding of their opponents,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 41, 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, R. (1977), “Shadow jury used by IBM at hearings in big anti-trust case,” The Wall Street Journal, 3 February, 7.Google Scholar
  12. Cyert, R. M., J. G. March and W. H. Starbuck (1961), “Two experiments on bias and conflict in organizational estimation,” Management Science, 7, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elstein, A. S., L. S. Shulman and S. A. Sprafka (1978), Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gerbasi, K. C., M. Zuckerman and H. T. Reis (1977), “Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research,” Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldhamer, H. and H. Speier (1959), “Some observations on political gaming,” World Politics, 12, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenberg, M.S. (1967), “Role playing: An alternative to deception,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood, J. D. (1983), “Role playing as an experimental strategy in social psychology,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halberstam, D. (1973), The Best and the Brightest. London: Barrie and Jenkins. Hartley, R. F. (1989), Marketing Mistakes. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Holmes, D. S. and D. H. Bennett (1974), “Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horowitz, I. A. and B. H. Rothschild (1970), “Conformity as a function of deception and role playing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Houston, B. K. and D. S. Holmes (1975), “Role playing versus deception: The ability of subjects to simulate self-report and physiological responses,” Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janis, I. L. and L. Mann (1965), “Effectiveness of emotional role playing in modifying smoking habits and attitudes,” Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 84–90.Google Scholar
  23. Kadden, R. M., M. D. Litt, N. L. Cooney and D. A. Busher (1992), “Relationship between role-play measures of coping skills and alcohol treatment outcome,” Addictive Behavior, 17, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerr, N. L., D. R. Nerenz and D. Herrick (1979), “Role playing and the study of jury behavior,” Sociological Methods and Research, 7, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kipper, D. A. and D. Har-Even (1984), “Role-playing techniques: The differential effect of behavior simulation interventions on the readiness to inflict pain,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 936–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leeds, J. P. and W. Burroughs (1997), “Finding the right stuff,” Security Management, March, 32–43.Google Scholar
  27. Locke, E. A. (1986), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington.Google Scholar
  28. Mandel, R. (1977), “Political gaming and foreign policy making during crises,” World Politics, 29, 610–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messe, L. A. and J. M. Sivacek (1979), “Predictions of others’ responses in a mixed-motive game: Self-justification or false consensus?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 602–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milgram, S. (1974), Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  31. Mixon, D. (1972), “Instead of deception,” Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 2, 145–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morwitz, V. G. (2001), “Methods for forecasting from intentions data,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Moynihan, P. (1987), “Expert gaming: A means to investigate the executive decisionprocess,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Leary, C. J., F. N. Willis and E. Tomich (1970), “Conformity under deceptive and nondeceptive techniques,” Sociological Quarterly, 11, 87–93.Google Scholar
  35. Orne, M. T., P. W. Sheehan and F. J. Evans (1968), “Occurrence of post-hypnotic behavior outside the experimental setting,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Randall, E. J., E. F. Cooke and L. Smith (1985), “A successful application of the assessment center concept to the salesperson selection process,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 5, No. 1, 53–61.Google Scholar
  37. Rowe, G. and G. Wright (2001), “Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the DelphiGoogle Scholar
  38. technique,“ in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting,Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Statman, M. and T. T. Tyebjee (1985), ”Optimistic capital budgeting forecasts: An experiment,“ Financial Management (Autumn), 27–33.Google Scholar
  39. Tamblyn, R., M. Abrahamowicz, B. Schnarch, J.A. Colliver, B.S. Benaroya and L. Snell (1994), “Can standardized patients predict real-patient satisfaction with the doctorpatient relationship?” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 6, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Willis, R. H. and Y. A. Willis (1970), “Role playing versus deception: An experimental comparison,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zimbardo, P. (1972), “The pathology of imprisonment,” Society, 9 (April), 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Scott Armstrong
    • 1
  1. 1.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations