Challenging Game Theory

Scholars at the conference were united in critiquing game theory and in issuing a plea for alternative models. Although pure game theory was never designed for labora­tory experiments, social scientists borrowed liberally from it because it contained the basic elements of any conflict situation.

Communication scholars challenged the single-minded accounts of game theory through arguing that motives and intensions were particularly ambiguous when players could not communicate explicitly (Steinfatt & Miller, 1974). In addition, game theo­ry’s focus on payoffs and outcomes ignored a bargainer’s psychological makeup, his or her relationship with the other negotiator, and concerns for face saving and self-esteem (Mortensen, 1974). This approach was also silent regarding the meanings of payoffs, utilities, and options (Simons, 1974b; D. H. Smith, 1983) and the validity of laboratory experiments (Jandt, 1974; Mortensen, 1974). Game theory also relied on static variables that failed to track changes in the process, goals, or payoff schedules (Hawes & Smith, 1973; Mortensen, 1974). In effect, commu­nication scholars concurred that pure game theory held little promise for guiding research, but they differed as to whether laboratory games per se were problematic (Miller, 1974). With this disenchantment, scholars called for the development of alternatives “to bring forth fresh perspectives and to enliven old ones” (Simons, 1974b, p. 1).