SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 38

Mutual Interaction of Conflict Management Strategies from A Game Theory Perspective and An Empirical Evidence from Auditors

Oyun Teorisi Perspektifinden Çatışma Yönetim Stratejilerinin Karşılıklı Etkileşimi ve Denetçilere Yönelik Bir Uygulama

Gürbüz Aydın(ANKARA SOSYAL BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2049-3928
Hakan Karabacak(ANKARA SOSYAL BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6321-088X
Pages
607–625
Publication Date
2023-05-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The analysis in the scope of the Stag hunt game supports the theoretical results that the equilibrium in which both parties choose the cooperation strategies and that the cooperative attitude is sustainable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the study, it is aimed to evaluate the conflict management strategies of the decision makers and to determine the optimal strategies, by taking the interactive nature of the conflict process into account.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the analysis process, firstly, the conflict management strategies of the parties are matched and a new model, namely Mutual Dual Concern Model, is introduced.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analysis in the scope of the Stag hunt game supports the theoretical results that the equilibrium in which both parties choose the cooperation strategies and that the cooperative attitude is sustainable.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çatışma Yönetim Stratejileri · İkili İlgi Modeli · Oyun Teorisi

Abstract

In the study, it is aimed to evaluate the conflict management strategies of the decision makers and to determine the optimal strategies, by taking the interactive nature of the conflict process into account. Game theory is adopted as an analysis and modeling tool. In the analysis process, firstly, the conflict management strategies of the parties are matched and a new model, namely Mutual Dual Concern Model, is introduced. The conflict management strategies are classified according to their competitive or cooperative characteristics considering the relevant literature. In the context of interactions between the parties, conflict management strategies are examined with the basic game forms of game theory and theoretical results are reached by equilibrium analyzes. These theoretical results are measured by an empirical study. The analysis in the context of the Prisoners’ Dilemma game supports the theoretical conclusions regarding the existence of the Nash equilibrium in which the parties adopt the competition and cooperation strategies together and the sustainability of the cooperation equilibrium. The analysis in the scope of the game of Chicken supports the theoretical conclusions that there is an equilibrium in which at least one player does not adopt a competitive attitude and that the competition is not sustainable. The analysis in the scope of the Stag hunt game supports the theoretical results that the equilibrium in which both parties choose the cooperation strategies and that the cooperative attitude is sustainable.

Özet

Bu çalışmada çatışma sürecinin etkileşimli doğası dikkate alarak karar alıcı tarafların çatışma yönetim stratejilerinin birlikte analiz edilmesi ve en uygun stratejilerin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Analiz ve modelleme aracı olarak oyun teorisi yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Analiz sürecinde öncelikle tarafların çatışma yönetim stratejileri eşleştirilmiş ve Karşılıklı İkili İlgi Modeli adı verilen yeni bir model ortaya konmuştur. Model kapsamında çatışma yönetim stratejileri, ilgili literatür dikkate alınarak rekabetçi veya işbirlikçi niteliklerine göre sınıflandırılmıştır. Taraflar arasındaki etkileşimler bağlamında, çatışma yönetim stratejileri oyun teorisinin temel oyun formlarıyla incelenmiş ve denge analizleri yapılarak kuramsal sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Bu kuramsal sonuçlar denetçilere yönelik ampirik bir araştırmayla ölçülmüştür. Modelin Mahkûmlar İkilemi oyunu kapsamında analizi tarafların rekabet ve işbirliği stratejilerini birlikte benimsedikleri Nash dengesinin varlığına ve işbirliği dengesinin sürdürülebilirliğine yönelik kuramsal sonuçları desteklemektedir. Modelin Tavuk oyunu kapsamında analizi, en az bir tarafın rekabetçi tutum benimsemediği dengenin varlığına ve rekabetin sürdürülebilir olmadığına yönelik kuramsal sonuçları desteklemektedir. Modelin Geyik Avı oyunu kapsamında analizi ise her iki tarafın işbirliği stratejini seçtikleri dengenin varlığına ve işbirliği tutumunun sürdürülebilir olduğuna yönelik kuramsal sonuçları desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, G., Karabacak, H. (2023). Mutual Interaction of Conflict Management Strategies from A Game Theory Perspective and An Empirical Evidence from Auditors. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 38, 607–625. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1071129

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evaluation of cooperation, Basic Books.
  2. Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M. ve Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus. International Sociology, 20, 259-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580905055477
  3. Blake, R. R. ve Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. TX Gulf Publishing Company.
  4. Blake, R. R. ve Mouton, J.S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts. Jossey-Bass.
  5. Blume, A. ve Ortmann A. (2007). The effects of costless pre-play communication: experimental evidence from games with Pareto-ranked equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 132(1), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2005.03.001
  6. Brandenburger A. ve Nalebuff B.J. (1995) The right game: use game theory to shape strategy. Harward Business Review, 57-71
  7. Carmichael, F. (2005). A guide to game theory. Pearson Education Limited.
  8. Chou, P.B., Bandera, C. ve Thomas, E.F. (2017). A behavioural game theory perspective on the collaboration between innovative and entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Work Innovation, 2(1), 6-31. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWI.2017.080729
  9. Clark, K.S., Kay, S. ve Sefton M. (2001). When are Nash equilibria self-enforcing? an experimental analysis. International Journal of Game Theory, 29, 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001820000054
  10. Cooper, R., D. DeJong, R. Forsythe ve Ross, T. (1992). Communication in Coordination Games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 739-771.
  11. Crawford W.P. ve Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50(6), 1431-1451. https://doi.org/0012-9682(198211)50:6 2.0.CO;2-J
  12. Crawford, V. (2016). New directions for modelling strategic behavior: game-theoretic models of communication, coordination, and cooperation in economic relationships. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.4.131
  13. De Janasz, C., Dowd K.O. ve Schneider B. Z. (2002). Interpersonal skills in organizations. McGraw-Hill.
  14. Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 237–263.
  15. Dixit, A.K., Skeath, S. ve Reiley, D. (2015). Games of strategy. W.W. Norton & Company.
  16. Dutta P. K. (1999). Strategies and games: theory and practice. MIT Press.
  17. Fang, C., Kimbrough, S. O., Pace, S., Valluri, A. ve Zheng, Z. (2002). On adaptive emergence of trust behavior in the game of stag hunt. Group Decision and Negotiation, 11(6), 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020639132471
  18. Farrell, J. (1993). Meaning and credibility in cheap-talk game. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(4), 514-531. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1993.1029.
  19. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C. ve Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 465–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293960
  20. Flood, M. (1958). Some experimental games. Management Science 5, 5–26
  21. Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. Harper & Row, 30– 49.
  22. Fudenberg, D. ve Tirole J. (1991). Perfect bayesian equilibrium and sequential equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory, 53, 236-260.
  23. Ghosh, S. (2005). Patent law and the assurance game: refitting intellectual property in the box of regulation. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 18(2), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900004021
  24. Heap, S. P. ve Varoufakis Y., (1995). Game theory: A critical introduction. Routledge.
  25. İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2019). 2019 yılı kamu iç denetim genel raporu. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2021/01/2019KamuicDenetimGenelRaporu.pdf adresinden 2 Aralık 2021 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  26. Kahn, H. (1965). On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers.
  27. Kelly, A. (2003). Decision making using game theory: an introduction for managers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  28. Lahkar, R. (2017). Equilibrium selection in the stag hunt game under generalized reinforcement learning. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 138, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.04.012
  29. Lawrence, P. R. ve Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391211
  30. Lax, D. A. ve Sebenius, J. K. (1986). Interests: the measure of negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 2, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998936
  31. Leyton-Brown, K. ve Shoham, Y. (2008). Essentials of game theory: A concise multidisciplinary introduction. Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning, 2(1), 1-88.
  32. Likert, R. ve Likert, J. G. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. McGraw-Hill.
  33. Luce R. D. ve Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. Wiley.
  34. Madani, K. (2010). Game theory and water resources. Journal of Hydrology, 381, 225-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.11.045.
  35. McCain, R. A. (2009). Game theory and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
  36. Murnighan, J. K. (2015). Attitudinal structuring and game theory. Negotiation Journal, 31(4), 361-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12108
  37. Myerson, R.B. (1991). Game theory: analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press.
  38. Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 36, 48-49.
  39. Nash, J. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54, 286-295.
  40. O’Neill, B. (1994), Game Theory Models on Peace and War. In: Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. 2, Robert J. Aumann and Sergiu Hart (Eds), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, 995-1053.
  41. Osborne M. J. (2000). Introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press.
  42. Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 167–194.
  43. Pruitt, D. G. ve Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation and social conflict. Open University Press.
  44. Putnam, L. L. ve Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6. Beverly Hills, Sage, 629–652.
  45. Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985
  46. Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations. Quorum Books.
  47. Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206-235. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022874
  48. Rahim, M. A. ve Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323–1344. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3c.1323
  49. Rapoport, A. (1965). Chicken a la kahn. Virginia Quarterly Review, 41, 370-389.
  50. Rapoport, A. ve Chammah, A. M. (1966). The game of chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, 10(3), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426601000303
  51. Romp, G. (1997). Game Theory, Introduction and Applications. Oxford University Press.
  52. Russell, B. (1959). Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare. Routledge Classics, New York,
  53. Saposnik, G. ve Johnston, S. C. (2016). Applying principles from the game theory to acute stroke care: Learning from the prisoner’s dilemma, stag-hunt, and other strategies. International Journal of Stroke, 11(3), 274-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016631725
  54. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1966. Arms and Influence. Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
  55. Shubik, M. (1983). Game Theory in the Social Sciences, Concepts and Solutions. the MIT Press.
  56. Skyrms, B. (2003). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.
  57. Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management, M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology içinde (s. 889–935). Rand-McNally.
  58. Watson J. (2008). Strategy: An introduction to game theory. W.W. Norton.
  59. Webb, J. N. (2007). Game Theory: decisions, interaction and evolution. Springer-Verlag.
  60. Yoshida, W., Seymour, B., Friston, K. J. ve Dolan, R. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms of belief inference during cooperative games. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(32), 10744-10751. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5895-09.2010