Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 261–277 | Cite as

Perceptual Graph Model Systems



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.


Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Graph model system Perceptual graph models Possibility principle Strategic conflict Emotion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett PG (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5(6): 749–751. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett PG (1980) Hypergames: developing a model of conflicts. Futures 12(6): 489–507. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(80)90005-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam’s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Damasio AR (2003) Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Harcourt, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser N, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Inohara T (2000) Interperceptional equilibrium as a generalization of Nash equilibrium in games with interperception. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 30(6): 625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. LeDoux J (2000) Cognitive-emotional interaction: listen to the brain. In: Lane RD, Nadel L Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 3322–3329Google Scholar
  16. 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 1126–1131Google Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Supreme Court of Canada (1999a) R. v. Marshall. File No. 26014, September 17.
  20. Supreme Court of Canada (1999b) R. v. Marshall. File No. 26014, November 17.
  21. Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1988) Modeling misperception in games. Behav Sci 33(3): 207–223. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830330305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amer Obeidi
    • 1
  • D. Marc Kilgour
    • 2
  • Keith W. Hipel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management Sciences, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations