Playing the board game Risk in world politics this past week has been so important because it has shown me the true passion and understanding of life that comes out of the study of world politics. After being separated into teams, I was fascinated to watch all the defensive strategies of the other members. As I observed the unanticipated powers that had appeared and the ways the teams formed alliances and went to war, it made the game more unpredictable than I had originally imagined.
The prospect theory in psychology states that individuals have a tendency to treat gains and losses differently. It holds that decision makers seem to fear losses more than they desire gains, and this translates into a willingness to take greater risks to protect what they have and fewer risks are taken to acquire what they want. I noticed that all the teams in the class, while they always desired to acquire more territory, were first and foremost concerned about protecting what territory they already possessed.
The status quo (in this example a state’s current territorial possessions) becomes a reference point which helps to predict, according to Jack Levy in Prospect Theory and Rational Choice, “risk-averse” or “risk-seeking” behavior. With all the teams given separate instructions and objectives, it was hard to identify which team was the risk-seeker and depending on the circumstances (if the team was at war or allied with another) if they were demonstrating risk-adverse behavior to protect their own best interest. Thus, when possible, it is important to understand that the status-quo of a country may have a different reference point than one may think. Knowing a decision maker’s actual reference point and alliance with other countries are key factors in the opposing country’s success.
The heads of state and diplomats in our game of Risk were acting in neo-realism and neo-liberal assumptions that could be viewed as an example of game theory in international relations. Game theory is a method of states (in our example with teams) developing strategies that act as a method for developing rationalist theories. Neo-realism tend to view that the security of the state is always at risk. Neo-liberals tend to seek out the plan that is in the best interest for their own state.
Game theory and its application to international relations is constantly undergoing change to take into account the decision makers’ attitudes toward risk, as well as other’s insights into the decision-making process. Similar to game theory, the board game Risk we had been playing in class is useful in its ability to demonstrate how a county’s behavior affects the global community.
Citations:
Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations Jack S. Levy International Studies Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 87-112
Linnea- I thought the same thing about the Risk game. The application of true theory and molding it into an actual activity that shows something of a truly global world. Game theory is an interesting point to bring up as well (there's a reason I'm not an econ major!) because of how zero-sum theories can work in relation to who really wins. What does constitute winning in the global arena? International recognition? Does it really matter? I saw some constructivism, some liberal thoughts, some realism...all coming together as heads of state and diplomats worked together.
ReplyDelete