Skip to main content
Log in

Perceptual Graph Model Systems

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Theoretical structures are developed to account for the impact of emotion and perception in strategic conflict. In particular, the possibility principle facilitates modeling the effects of emotions on future scenarios contemplated by decision makers, while perceptual graph models and the associated graph model system permit the decision makers to experience and view the conflict independently. These new theoretical advances expand current modeling capabilities, thereby furnishing realistic, descriptive models without exacting too great a cost in modeling complexity. Specifically, these developments enhance the applicability of the modeling algorithms within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution to real-world disputes by integrating emotion and perception, common ingredients in almost all conflicts. To demonstrate that the new developments are practical, an illustrative application to a real-world conflict is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bechara A, Damasio AR (2005) The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav 52: 336–372. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5(6): 749–751. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG (1980) Hypergames: developing a model of conflicts. Futures 12(6): 489–507. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(80)90005-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caddy JF (2001) The Caddy report: the Lobster Resource in the Miramichi Bay. The State of Knowledge of the Lobster Resource in the Miramichi Bay and Adjacent Waters; Some Suggestions for Conflict Resolution over Fishing Seasons, and Ideas for Fisheries Research in Support of Lobster Management. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/

  • Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam’s Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio AR (2003) Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Harcourt, Orlando, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5): 736–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser N, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard N, Bennett PG, Bryant J, Bradley M (1992) Manifesto for a theory of drama and irrational choice. J Oper Res Soc 44: 99–103. doi:10.2307/2584447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inohara T (2000) Interperceptional equilibrium as a generalization of Nash equilibrium in games with interperception. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 30(6): 625–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TS, Bodtker A (2001) Mediating with heart in mind: addressing emotion in mediation practice. Negotiat J 17(3): 217–244. doi:10.1023/A:1013283710190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux J (2000) Cognitive-emotional interaction: listen to the brain. In: Lane RD, Nadel L Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2003) Emotion: the missing ingredient in conflict analysis. In: Proceedings the 2003 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Washington, D.C., October 5–8, pp 3322–3329

  • Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005a) Perception and Emotion in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. In: Proceedings the 2005 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, Hilton Waikoloa Village, The Big Island of Hawaii, October 9–12, pp 1126–1131

  • Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005b) The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decis Negotiat 14(6): 481–500. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-9004-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2006) Turbulence in Miramichi Bay: the Burnt Church conflict over native Fishing Rights. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42(6):1629–1645. JAWRA. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb06025.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Canada (1999a) R. v. Marshall. File No. 26014, September 17. http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1999/vol3/html/1999scr3_0456.html

  • Supreme Court of Canada (1999b) R. v. Marshall. File No. 26014, November 17. http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1999/vol3/html/1999scr3_0533.html

  • Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1988) Modeling misperception in games. Behav Sci 33(3): 207–223. doi:10.1002/bs.3830330305

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amer Obeidi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Obeidi, A., Kilgour, D.M. & Hipel, K.W. Perceptual Graph Model Systems. Group Decis Negot 18, 261–277 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9154-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9154-6

Keywords

Navigation