Summary
This article focuses on the ways that role playing improves forecasting accuracy in decision-making. The author, J. Scott Armstrong, provides evidence from previous studies, along with findings from his own experiments, to demonstrate how role playing is more beneficial than expert opinions in forecasting. Armstrong explains that role playing is carried out when "a forecaster ask subjects to put themselves in specified roles and then to either imagine how they would act, act out their responses alone, or interact with others in the situation". Armstrong includes specific recommendations on how to execute successful role playing. These recommendations highlight the key factors within role playing including casting subjects, the role playing instructions, a description of the situation, administration, coding, and the number of sessions.
First, Armstrong suggests that casting subjects similar to the decision-makers being portrayed has little weight on the role playing operation. This is due to previous experiments, such as Zimbardo (1972), that received realistic results from employing students as subjects. Armstrong says it is appropriate to use somewhat similar subjects if it is difficult to find role players who are very similar to the decision-makers. Next, Armstrong explains the importance of describing the roles of the subjects before they read the description of the situation being played out. The subjects should then be asked to improvise while acting either as themselves, or as how they believe the actual decision-maker would act in the given situation. Armstrong states that the situation should be described as accurately and briefly as possible so the subject is able to comprehend the situation. In order to make analysis easier, Armstrong also suggests that it is useful to provide subjects with possible decisions if this makes sense to the situation. Because role playing should be realistic, Armstrong highlights that it is important for the subjects to act out their responses and to interact in ways that correspond with the role playing situation. Finally, to properly analyze the role playing, Armstrong recommends having subjects write down their views of the decision and to have more than one person code their responses. Forecasts should be based on the number of decisions made through role playing. It is advantageous for the forecaster to perform at least five role playing sessions with one description, and five with another description.
Armstrong explains the ideal situations to use role playing, as well. Role playing is most useful in situations where there are two interacting parties. This contrasts from situations where parties do not interact, and in situations where there are too many parties involved. Secondly, role playing works best when the interacting parties are in conflict with one another. Lastly, role playing is beneficial for forecasting situations that involve situations with considerable changes. Armstrong states that role playing works well for these situations because of its ability to produce valid situations, and in turn, accurate forecasting. This is because role playing can make decision-makers aware of outcomes that were previously unknown to them. Additionally, role playing is able to provide decision-makers with a greater understanding of the situation since it acknowledges the perspectives of each party involved.
Critique
Armstrong gives extensive information on how and when to perform role playing, making it easy to understand the role playing process. One thing, however, that was hard to follow is why Armstrong proposes allowing subjects to either act as themselves or as the portrayed decision-maker. It seems unproductive to have someone act as their self if the purpose is to have them take on the role of a specific decision-maker. Armstrong also does not fully explain how to code and analyze the results of the role playing exercise, which would have been helpful to include.
Source
Armstrong, J.S. (2001). Role playing: A method to forecast decisions. Marketing Papers, 152. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=marketing_papers
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Aubrey,
ReplyDeleteI think the last sentence in your summary made a very valid point. Not only listening, but temporarily putting yourself in another persons shoes can lend greater perspective to a situation. I thought this article was summarized well.
Chad, thank you very much. I agree, I think being able to take on someone else's perspective helps clarify the situation as a whole.
DeleteAubrey, I think there is a lot of validity in this article review. What I found highly important was the topic when you described the role of a variety of individuals coding for the results of what the role-players find. Also, that role-playing should be done numerous times before conclusions can be drawn. Good work and nice find.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tom! I thought those points were important, as well, since different people may code and act out the roles differently.
DeleteAubrey,
ReplyDeleteYour article covered almost all the bases, but like Ruark's the question I don't think is reasonably accounted for is the time one is given to immerse themselves into a role and whether that will impact the results of a study or a decision? Of course that is if time permits it, and a time constrained environment isn't necessarily on hand.
Roland, that is a good point to make. Surprisingly this article discussed how it is an option to have a subject roleplay and make decisions as their self, which I thought defeated the purpose of roleplaying. I agree with you though and think that would be beneficial to research.
DeleteAubrey,
ReplyDeleteNice find on an article that actually looks at determining forecasting accuracy. I can never seem to find any. lol I agree with your first comment in your critique. I too was wondering what the point of doing a role-playing exercise would be if the participant wasn't going to be playing the role of someone else. I was hoping you could clarify something in the second paragraph. The summary says that Armstrong suggests that casting subjects similar to the decision-makers being portrayed has little weight on the role playing operation. But then he makes it seem like one should try to find subjects as similar to the decision maker as possible two sentences later. Do you know if he believes whether a study should try to find similar subjects or if it doesn't really matter?
-Eric
Eric, that's a good question. This kind of confused me too, but I think what Armstrong is trying to convey is that the other conditions he mentioned hold more weight. This also goes along with how he mentions it appropriate if the subject thinks as their self. It seems inconsistent with the rest of the article.
DeleteAubrey, I am not sure I agree with your notion that it is unproductive to have someone act as themselves in a role-playing event. I (not an expert) feel that it could help them to understand the situation better, kind of like training, much like pilots in a flight simulator.
ReplyDeleteRuark, that's a good point. I was just thinking it would be important to think like the DM, since that is the focus of the exercise.
Delete