Computational Models of Human Behavior in Wartime Negotiations

Abstract

Political scientists are increasingly turning to game-theoretic models to understand and predict the behavior of national leaders in wartime scenarios, where two sides have the options of seeking resolution at either the bargaining table or on the battlefield. While the theoretical analyses of these models is suggestive of their ability to capture these scenarios, it is not clear to what degree human behavior conforms to such equilibrium-based expectations. We present the results of a study that placed people within two of these game models, playing against an intelligent agent. We consider several testable hypotheses drawn from the theoretical analyses and evaluate the degree to which the observed human decision-making conforms to those hypotheses.


Back to Table of Contents