Abstract
The success of game theory in providing rigorous normative solutions to decision-making problems does not hide the fact that some realism has been sacrificed in the process. Proposed here is an interesting idea that an auxiliary concept—a common sense notion of commitment—can be used to bridge the gap between the normative formulation and typical behavioral processes in decision making. Perhaps several such concepts can be identified in the hope that a realistic and rounded framework for decision making can be developed without discarding the rigor and power of theoretical results already achieved. For other treatments of game theory in behavioral science, the reader is referred to the January, 1959 issue of Behavioral Science for an article by Anatol Rapoport entitled “Critiques of Game Theory,” and to an article by T. C. Schelling named “Bargaining, Communication, and Limited War” in the Journal of Conflict Resolution (March, 1957).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
