Confrontation analysis
Confrontation analysis
- Confrontation analysis (also known as dilemma analysis**) is an operational analysis technique used to structure, understand, and analyze multi-party interactions, such as negotiations or conflicts. It serves as the mathematical foundation for [[drama-theory]].
While based on game-theory, confrontation analysis differs in that it focuses on the idea that players may redefine the game during the interaction, often due to the influence of emotions. In traditional game theory, players generally work within a fixed set of rules (represented by a decision matrix). However, confrontation analysis sees the interaction as a sequence of linked decisions, where the rules or perceptions of the game can shift over time, influenced by emotional dilemmas or psychological factors that arise during the interaction.
Derivation and use Confrontation analysis was devised by Professor Nigel Howard in the early 1990s drawing from his work on game theory and metagame-analysis. It has been turned to defence, political, legal, financial and commercial applications.
Much of the theoretical background to General Rupert Smith's book The Utility of Force drew its inspiration from the theory of confrontation analysis.
Confrontation analysis can also be used in a decision workshop as structure to support role-playing clear to one another. These positions can be expressed as a options table (also known as a card table ) of yes/no decisions. For each decision each party communicates what they would like to happen (their position in that it wants Hamas not to attack it effectively. Hamas has a persuasion dilemma in that Israel has not given back all its land to the Palestinians. It also has a sufficiency dilemma in that its rocket attacks on Israel were not causing enough pressure on Israel for it to act on this.
Faced with these dilemmas, the Israel modified the options table to eliminate its dilemma. It attacked Gaza to destroy Hamas, so that Hamas would be unable to attack it in a way that would be effective again.
[[File:HamasConfrontation2.jpg|thumb|x250px|right|Modified Options Table:, as its threat to attack Israel effectively is no longer credible. * Israel now has no dilemmas, so is politically content with the situation. However, Hamas still has dilemmas and will struggle to eliminate them * The threatened future (that which will happen if nothing changes) is now: ** Israel will **not** give all the land of Israel back to the Palestinians. ** Hamas will continue to fire rockets at Israel. ** Hamas says it will continue to attack Israel effectively, but Israel doubts it thinking it is unable. ** Israel will continue to destroy Hamas in Gaza.
A second example on the left shows the other two dilemmas: The trust dilemma and the co-operation dilemma. This example is taken from lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war. Here the USA thought that Saddam Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam said he was not, but the USA doubted this and thought that he was. They therefore invaded Iraq.
Confrontation analysis does not necessarily produce a win-win solution (although end states are more likely to remain stable if they do); however, the word confrontation should not necessarily imply that any negotiations should be carried out in an aggressive way.
The card tables are isomorphic to game-theory models. The aim is to find the dilemmas facing participants and so help to forecast how the participants might change the options table to eliminate them. The forecast requires both analysis of the model and its dilemmas, and also exploration of the reality outside the model; both will show the strategies the participant might use change the options table to eliminate dilemmas.
Sometimes analysis of the ticks and crosses can be supported by values showing the payoff to each of the parties.