research topics in game theory

Game Theory Research Paper Topics

This comprehensive guide to game theory research paper topics is designed to assist students and researchers in the field of economics. Selecting a compelling and relevant research topic is a crucial step in the academic journey, and this guide aims to facilitate this process. We provide an extensive list of topics, divided into ten categories, each with ten unique ideas. Additionally, we offer expert advice on how to select a topic from this multitude and how to write a research paper in game theory. Lastly, we introduce iResearchNet’s professional writing services, tailored to support your academic journey and ensure success in your research endeavors.

100 Game Theory Research Paper Topics

Choosing a research paper topic is a critical step in the research process. The topic you select will guide your study and influence the complexity and relevance of your work. In the field of game theory, there are numerous intriguing topics that can be explored. To assist you in this process, we have compiled a comprehensive list of game theory research paper topics. These topics are divided into ten categories, each offering a different perspective on game theory.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• The role of Nash Equilibrium in game theory
• The concept of Dominant Strategy and its applications
• The Prisoner’s Dilemma and its implications
• The concept of Subgame Perfect Equilibrium
• Zero-sum games and their significance
• The role of Mixed Strategy in game theory
• The concept of Pareto Efficiency in game theory
• Evolutionary game theory and its applications
• The concept of Bayesian games
• The role of Repeated Games in game theory
• The role of game theory in strategic decision making
• The impact of game theory on negotiation strategies
• Game theory and decision making under uncertainty
• The role of game theory in conflict resolution
• The impact of game theory on cooperative decision making
• Game theory and decision making in competitive environments
• The role of game theory in risk management
• Game theory and decision making in auctions
• The impact of game theory on voting strategies
• Game theory and decision making in social dilemmas
• The use of game theory in understanding market competition
• The impact of game theory on economic policy making
• The role of game theory in understanding oligopolies
• Game theory and its role in understanding bargaining situations
• The influence of game theory on economic behavior
• The role of game theory in understanding public goods and free-riding
• The impact of game theory on understanding market failures
• Game theory and its role in understanding strategic trade policy
• The influence of game theory on understanding labor negotiations
• The role of game theory in understanding financial markets
• The role of game theory in strategic business decisions
• Game theory and its impact on pricing strategies
• The use of game theory in understanding competitive strategies
• Game theory and its role in merger and acquisition decisions
• The influence of game theory on supply chain management
• The role of game theory in understanding corporate governance
• The impact of game theory on marketing strategies
• Game theory and its role in understanding business negotiations
• The influence of game theory on organizational behavior
• The role of game theory in understanding innovation and R&D strategies
• The role of game theory in understanding voting behavior
• Game theory and its impact on political negotiations
• The use of game theory in understanding international relations
• Game theory and its role in understanding political coalitions
• The influence of game theory on policy making
• The role of game theory in understanding electoral competition
• The impact of game theory on understanding conflict and war
• Game theory and its role in understanding public policy decisions
• The influence of game theory on understanding political power dynamics
• The role of game theory in understanding political cooperation and conflict
• The role of game theory in algorithm design
• Game theory and its impact on network design and performance
• The use of game theory in understanding cybersecurity
• Game theory and its role in artificial intelligence
• The influence of game theory on distributed computing
• The role of game theory in understanding internet economics
• The impact of game theory on understanding data privacy
• Game theory and its role in understanding machine learning
• The influence of game theory on understanding software engineering
• The role of game theory in understanding social networks
• The role of game theory in understanding evolutionary biology
• Game theory and its impact on understanding animal behavior
• The use of game theory in understanding population dynamics
• Game theory and its role in understanding cooperation and conflict in nature
• The influence of game theory on understanding ecological interactions
• The role of game theory in understanding disease spread and control
• The impact of game theory on understanding conservation strategies
• Game theory and its role in understanding genetic algorithms
• The influence of game theory on understanding ecosystem management
• The role of game theory in understanding biodiversity
• The role of game theory in understanding social behavior
• Game theory and its impact on understanding social norms
• The use of game theory in understanding social networks
• Game theory and its role in understanding social conflict and cooperation
• The influence of game theory on understanding social influence and persuasion
• The role of game theory in understanding social decision making
• The impact of game theory on understanding social dilemmas
• Game theory and its role in understanding social justice and fairness
• The influence of game theory on understanding social change and stability
• The role of game theory in understanding social identity and group behavior
• The role of game theory in understanding mathematical optimization
• Game theory and its impact on understanding mathematical modeling
• The use of game theory in understanding mathematical logic
• Game theory and its role in understanding mathematical decision theory
• The influence of game theory on understanding mathematical probability
• The role of game theory in understanding mathematical statistics
• The impact of game theory on understanding mathematical operations research
• Game theory and its role in understanding mathematical graph theory
• The influence of game theory on understanding mathematical combinatorics
• The role of game theory in understanding mathematical dynamical systems
• The role of game theory in understanding behavioral economics
• Game theory and its impact on understanding quantum computing
• The use of game theory in understanding complex systems
• Game theory and its role in understanding network science
• The influence of game theory on understanding artificial intelligence 6. The role of game theory in understanding climate change strategies
• The impact of game theory on understanding sustainable development
• Game theory and its role in understanding social media dynamics
• The influence of game theory on understanding future economic models
• The role of game theory in understanding future political strategies

This comprehensive list of game theory research paper topics provides a wide range of options for your research. Each category offers unique insights into the different aspects of game theory, from fundamental concepts to future directions. Remember, the best research paper topic is one that not only interests you but also has sufficient resources for you to explore. We hope this list inspires you and aids you in your journey to write a compelling research paper in game theory.

Introduction to Game Theory

Game theory, a fascinating and influential field of study, is a theoretical framework for understanding social situations among competing players. In some respects, game theory is the science of strategy, or at least the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting.

The key pioneers of game theory were mathematicians John von Neumann and John Nash, as well as economist Oskar Morgenstern. Game theory was originally developed to understand economic behavior and is still widely used in economics today. However, its applications have expanded to various other fields, including computer science, political science, and biology.

In essence, game theory models the rational behavior of individuals who are aware that their actions affect each other. It involves designing mathematical models to study interactions in structured scenarios (games) and predict the outcome of these interactions. Games in this context are situations where outcomes depend on the actions of multiple players. Each player has a set of possible actions and makes a decision based on their preferences and the expected actions of other players.

Game theory has two main branches: cooperative and non-cooperative game theory. In cooperative games, binding agreements among players are possible, while in non-cooperative games, binding agreements are not. Non-cooperative game theory, which focuses on predicting individual behavior, is more widely used.

Game theory has a wide range of applications. In economics, it is used to model competition and cooperation between firms, to analyze bargaining situations, and to understand and design auctions. In political science, it is used to model strategic voting, while in computer science, it is used in the design of algorithms.

Research papers in game theory allow students to delve deeper into specific areas, contributing to their personal knowledge and the broader academic community. These papers can explore a wide range of game theory research paper topics, from understanding the role of game theory in economic decisions to examining its applications in computer science or political science.

The importance of game theory extends beyond academia. It has real-world implications in various sectors, including economics, politics, and computer science. By understanding the strategic interactions modeled by game theory, we can design better policies, make better business decisions, and develop more efficient algorithms.

How to Choose a Game Theory Topic

Choosing a research topic is a critical step in the research process. The topic you select will guide your study, influence the complexity and relevance of your work, and determine how engaged you are throughout the process. There are numerous intriguing game theory research paper topics that can be explored. Here are some expert tips to assist you in this process:

• Understanding Your Interests: The first step in choosing a research topic is to understand your interests. What areas of game theory fascinate you the most? Are you interested in how game theory influences economic behavior, or are you more intrigued by its role in computer science or political science? Reflecting on these questions can help you narrow down your options and choose a topic that truly engages you. Remember, research is a time-consuming process, and your interest in the topic will keep you motivated.
• Evaluating the Scope of the Topic: Once you have identified your areas of interest, the next step is to evaluate the scope of potential game theory research paper topics. A good research topic should be neither too broad nor too narrow. If it’s too broad, you may struggle to cover all aspects of the topic effectively. If it’s too narrow, you may have difficulty finding enough information to support your research. Try to choose a topic that is specific enough to be manageable but broad enough to have sufficient resources.
• Assessing Available Resources and Data: Before finalizing a topic, it’s important to assess the available resources and data. Are there enough academic sources, such as books, journal articles, and reports, that you can use for your research? Is there accessible data that you can analyze if your research requires it? A preliminary review of literature and data can save you from choosing a topic with limited resources.
• Considering the Relevance and Applicability of the Topic: Another important factor to consider is the relevance and applicability of the topic. Is the topic relevant to current issues in game theory? Can the findings of your research be applied in real-world settings? Choosing a relevant and applicable topic can increase the impact of your research and make it more interesting for your audience.
• Seeking Advice: Don’t hesitate to seek advice from your professors, peers, or other experts in the field. They can provide valuable insights, suggest resources, and help you refine your topic. Discussing your ideas with others can also help you see different perspectives and identify potential issues that you may not have considered.
• Flexibility: Finally, be flexible. Research is a dynamic process, and it’s okay to modify your topic as you delve deeper into your study. You may discover new aspects of the topic that are more interesting or find that some aspects are too challenging to explore due to constraints. Being flexible allows you to adapt your research to these changes and ensure that your study is both feasible and engaging.

Remember, choosing a research topic is not a decision to be taken lightly. It requires careful consideration and planning. However, with these expert tips, you can navigate this process more effectively and choose a game theory research paper topic that not only meets your academic requirements but also fuels your passion for learning.

How to Write a Game Theory Research Paper

Writing a research paper in game theory, like any other academic paper, requires careful planning, thorough research, and meticulous writing. Here are some expert tips to guide you through this process:

• Understanding the Structure of a Research Paper: A typical research paper includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The introduction presents your research question and its significance. The literature review provides an overview of existing research related to your topic. The methodology explains how you conducted your research. The results section presents your findings, and the discussion interprets these findings in the context of your research question. Finally, the conclusion summarizes your research and suggests areas for future research.
• Developing a Strong Thesis Statement: Your thesis statement is the central argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise, and debatable. A strong thesis statement guides your research and helps your readers understand the purpose of your paper.
• Conducting Thorough Research: Before you start writing, conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your topic. This will help you understand the current state of research in your area, identify gaps in the literature, and position your research within this context. Use academic databases to find relevant books, journal articles, and other resources. Remember to evaluate the credibility of your sources and take detailed notes to help you when writing.
• Writing and Revising Drafts: Start writing your research paper by creating an outline based on the structure of a research paper. This will help you organize your thoughts and ensure that you cover all necessary sections. Write a first draft without worrying too much about perfection. Focus on getting your ideas down first. Then, revise your draft to improve clarity, coherence, and argumentation. Make sure each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and supports your thesis statement.
• Proper Citation and Avoiding Plagiarism: Always cite your sources properly to give credit to the authors whose work you are building upon and to avoid plagiarism. Familiarize yourself with the citation style required by your institution or discipline, such as APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard. There are many citation tools available online that can help you with this.
• Seeking Feedback: Don’t hesitate to seek feedback on your drafts from your professors, peers, or writing centers at your institution. They can provide valuable insights and help you improve your paper.
• Proofreading: Finally, proofread your paper to check for any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies in formatting. A well-written, error-free paper makes a good impression on your readers and enhances the credibility of your research.
• Incorporating Game Theory Concepts: When writing a game theory research paper, it’s crucial to accurately incorporate game theory concepts. Make sure you understand these concepts thoroughly and can explain them clearly in your paper. Use diagrams and examples where appropriate to illustrate these concepts.
• Analyzing and Interpreting Game Theory Models: Game theory research often involves analyzing and interpreting game theory models. Be sure to explain your analysis process and interpret the results in a way that is understandable to your readers. Discuss the implications of your findings for the broader field of game theory.
• Discussing Real-World Applications: Game theory is a practical field with many real-world applications. Discuss how your research relates to these applications. This can make your research more interesting and relevant to your readers.

Remember, writing a research paper is a process that requires time, effort, and patience. Don’t rush through it. Take your time to understand your topic, conduct thorough research, and write carefully. With these expert tips, you can write a compelling game theory research paper that contributes to your academic success and the broader field of game theory.

iResearchNet’s Research Paper Writing Services

In the academic journey, students often encounter challenges that may hinder their ability to produce high-quality research papers. Whether it’s a lack of time, limited understanding of the topic, or difficulties in writing, these challenges can make the process stressful and overwhelming. This is where iResearchNet’s professional writing services come in. We are committed to supporting students in their academic journey by providing top-notch writing services tailored to their unique needs.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers: At iResearchNet, we understand the importance of quality in academic writing. That’s why we have a team of expert writers who hold degrees in various fields, including economics. Our writers are not only knowledgeable in their respective fields but also experienced in academic writing. They understand the nuances of writing research papers and are adept at producing well-structured, coherent, and insightful papers.
• Custom Written Works: We believe that every research paper is unique and should be treated as such. Our writers work closely with you to understand your specific requirements and expectations. They then craft a custom research paper that meets these requirements and reflects your understanding and perspective.
• In-Depth Research: Good research is the backbone of a compelling research paper. Our writers conduct thorough research using reliable and relevant sources to ensure that your paper is informative and credible. They are skilled at analyzing and synthesizing information, presenting complex ideas clearly, and developing strong arguments.
• Custom Formatting: Formatting is an essential aspect of academic writing that contributes to the readability and professionalism of your paper. Our writers are familiar with various formatting styles, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard, and can format your paper according to your preferred style.
• Top Quality: Quality is at the heart of our services. We strive to deliver research papers that are not only well-written and well-researched but also original and plagiarism-free. Our writers adhere to high writing standards, and our quality assurance team reviews each paper to ensure it meets these standards.
• Customized Solutions: We understand that each student has unique needs and circumstances. Whether you need a research paper on a complex game theory topic, assistance with a specific section of your paper, or editing and proofreading services, we can provide a solution that fits your needs.
• Flexible Pricing: We believe that professional writing services should be accessible to all students. That’s why we offer flexible pricing options that cater to different budgets. We are transparent about our pricing, and there are no hidden charges.
• Short Deadlines up to 3 hours: We understand that time is of the essence when it comes to academic assignments. Whether you need a research paper in a week or a few hours, our writers are up to the task. They are skilled at working under pressure and can deliver high-quality papers within short deadlines.
• Timely Delivery: We respect your deadlines and are committed to delivering your paper on time. Our writers start working on your paper as soon as your order is confirmed, and we keep you updated on the progress of your paper.
• 24/7 Support: We believe in providing continuous support to our clients. Our customer support team is available 24/7 to answer your questions, address your concerns, and assist you with your order.
• Absolute Privacy: We respect your privacy and are committed to protecting your personal and financial information. We have robust privacy policies and security measures in place to ensure that your information is safe.
• Easy Order Tracking: We provide an easy and transparent order tracking system that allows you to monitor the progress of your paper and communicate with your writer.
• Money Back Guarantee: Your satisfaction is our top priority. If you are not satisfied with our service, we offer a money-back guarantee.

At iResearchNet, we are committed to helping you succeed in your academic journey. We understand the challenges of writing a research paper and are here to support you every step of the way. Whether you need help choosing a topic, conducting research, writing your paper, or editing and proofreading your work, our expert writers are ready to assist you. With our professional writing services, you can focus on learning and leave the stress of writing to us. So why wait? Order a custom game theory research paper from iResearchNet today and experience the difference.

Empower Your Academic Journey: Choose iResearchNet Today!

Embarking on the journey of writing a research paper can be a daunting task, especially when it comes to complex fields like game theory. But remember, you don’t have to face this challenge alone. iResearchNet is here to provide you with the support you need to produce a high-quality, insightful, and impactful research paper.

Our team of expert degree-holding writers is ready to assist you in creating a custom-written research paper that not only meets but exceeds academic standards. Whether you’re struggling with topic selection, research, writing, or formatting, we’ve got you covered. Our comprehensive services are designed to cater to your unique needs and ensure your academic success.

Don’t let the stress of writing a research paper hinder your learning experience. Take advantage of our professional writing services and focus on what truly matters – your learning and growth. With iResearchNet, you can be confident that you’re submitting a top-quality research paper that reflects your understanding and hard work.

So, are you ready to empower your academic journey? Order a custom economics research paper on any of the game theory research paper topics from iResearchNet today. Let us help you navigate your academic journey and secure your success. Remember, your academic achievement is our top priority, and we’re committed to helping you reach your goals. Order now and experience the iResearchNet difference!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

June 2, 2003

What is game theory and what are some of its applications?

Saul I. Gass, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business, explains.

Game: A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators ( The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1967).

Consider the following real-world competitive situations: missile defense, sales price wars for new cars, energy regulation, auditing tax payers, the TV show "Survivor," terrorism, NASCAR racing, labor- management negotiations, military conflicts, bidding at auction, arbitration, advertising, elections and voting, agricultural crop selection, conflict resolution, stock market, insurance, and telecommunications. What do they have in common?

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

A basic example helps to illustrate the point. After learning how to play the game tick-tack-toe, you probably discovered a strategy of play that enables you to achieve at least a draw and even win if your opponent makes a mistake and you notice it. Sticking to that strategy ensures that you will not lose.

This simple game illustrates the essential aspects of what is now called game theory. In it, a game is the set of rules that describe it. An instance of the game from beginning to end is known as a play of the game. And a pure strategy--such as the one you found for tick-tack-toe--is an overall plan specifying moves to be taken in all eventualities that can arise in a play of the game. A game is said to have perfect information if, throughout its play, all the rules, possible choices, and past history of play by any player are known to all participants. Games like tick-tack-toe, backgammon and chess are games with perfect information and such games are solved by pure strategies. But whereas you may be able to describe all such pure strategies for tick-tack-toe, it is not possible to do so for chess, hence the latter's age-old intrigue.

Games without perfect information, such as matching pennies, stone-paper-scissors or poker offer the players a challenge because there is no pure strategy that ensures a win. For matching pennies you have two pure strategies: play heads or tails. For stone-paper-scissors you have three pure strategies: play stone or paper or scissors. In both instances you cannot just continually play a pure strategy like heads or stone because your opponent will soon catch on and play the associated winning strategy. What to do? We soon learn to try to confound our opponent by randomizing our choice of strategy for each play (for heads-tails, just toss the coin in the air and see what happens for a 50-50 split). There are also other ways to control how we randomize. For example, for stone-paper-scissors we can toss a six-sided die and decide to select stone half the time (the numbers 1, 2 or 3 are tossed), select paper one third of the time (the numbers 4 or 5 are tossed) or select scissors one sixth of the time (the number 6 is tossed). Doing so would tend to hide your choice from your opponent. But, by mixing strategies in this manner, should you expect to win or lose in the long run? What is the optimal mix of strategies you should play? How much would you expect to win? This is where the modern mathematical theory of games comes into play.

Games such as heads-tails and stone-paper-scissors are called two-person zero-sum games. Zero-sum means that any money Player 1 wins (or loses) is exactly the same amount of money that Player 2 loses (or wins). That is, no money is created or lost by playing the game. Most parlor games are many-person zero-sum games (but if you are playing poker in a gambling hall, with the hall taking a certain percentage of the pot to cover its overhead, the game is not zero-sum). For two-person zero-sum games, the 20th century¿s most famous mathematician, John von Neumann, proved that all such games have optimal strategies for both players, with an associated expected value of the game. Here the optimal strategy, given that the game is being played many times, is a specialized random mix of the individual pure strategies. The value of the game, denoted by v, is the value that a player, say Player 1, is guaranteed to at least win if he sticks to the designated optimal mix of strategies no matter what mix of strategies Player 2 uses. Similarly, Player 2 is guaranteed not to lose more than v if he sticks to the designated optimal mix of strategies no matter what mix of strategies Player 1 uses. If v is a positive amount, then Player 1 can expect to win that amount, averaged out over many plays, and Player 2 can expect to lose that amount. The opposite is the case if v is a negative amount. Such a game is said to be fair if v = 0. That is, both players can expect to win 0 over a long run of plays. The mathematical description of a zero-sum two-person game is not difficult to construct, and determining the optimal strategies and the value of the game is computationally straightforward. We can show that heads-tails is a fair game and that both players have the same optimal mix of strategies that randomizes the selection of heads or tails 50 percent of the time for each. Stone-paper-scissors is also a fair game and both players have optimal strategies that employ each choice one third of the time. Not all zero-sum games are fair, although most two-person zero-sum parlor games are fair games. So why do we then play them? They are fun, we like the competition, and, since we usually play for a short period of time, the average winnings could be different than 0. Try your hand at the following game that has a v = 1/5.

The Skin Game: Two players are each provided with an ace of diamonds and an ace of clubs. Player 1 is also given the two of diamonds and Player 2 the two of clubs. In a play of the game, Player 1 shows one card, and Player 2, ignorant of Player 1¿s choice, shows one card. Player 1 wins if the suits match, and Player 2 wins if they do not. The amount (payoff) that is won is the numerical value of the card of the winner. But, if the two deuces are shown, the payoff is zero. [Here, if the payoffs are in dollars, Player 1 can expect to win $0.20. This game is a carnival hustler¿s (Player 1) favorite; his optimal mixed strategy is to never play the ace of diamonds, play the ace of clubs 60 percent of the time, and the two of diamonds 40 percent of the time.]

The power of game theory goes way beyond the analysis of such relatively simple games, but complications do arise. We can have many-person competitive situations in which the players can form coalitions and cooperate against the other players; many-person games that are nonzero-sum; games with an infinite number of strategies; and two-person nonzero sum games, to name a few. Mathematical analysis of such games has led to a generalization of von Neumann¿s optimal solution result for two-person zero-sum games called an equilibrium solution. An equilibrium solution is a set of mixed strategies, one for each player, such that each player has no reason to deviate from that strategy, assuming all the other players stick to their equilibrium strategy. We then have the important generalization of a solution for game theory: Any many-person non-cooperative finite strategy game has at least one equilibrium solution. This result was proven by John Nash and was pictured in the movie, A Beautiful Mind. The book ( A Beautiful Mind, by Sylvia Nasar; Simon & Schuster, 1998) provides a more realistic and better-told story.

By now you have concluded that the answer to the opening question on competitive situations is "game theory." Aspects of all the cited areas have been subjected to analysis using the techniques of game theory. The web site www.gametheory.net lists about 200 fairly recent references organized into 20 categories. It is important to note, however, that for many competitive situations game theory does not really solve the problem at hand. Instead, it helps to illuminate the problem and offers us a different way of interpreting the competitive interactions and possible results. Game theory is a standard tool of analysis for professionals working in the fields of operations research, economics, finance, regulation, military, insurance, retail marketing, politics, conflict analysis, and energy, to name a few. For further information about game theory see the aforementioned web site and http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html.

• Frontiers in Physics
• Social Physics
• Research Topics

Real-World Applications of Game Theory and Optimization

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

This research topic centers on the practical application of game theory and optimization methods to address complex challenges in real-world contexts. At its core, game theory provides a framework for analyzing strategic interactions among rational decision-makers, while optimization techniques are designed ...

Keywords : Game Theory, Optimization, Decision-Making

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Classification of games

One-person games.

• Games of perfect information
• Games of imperfect information
• Mixed strategies and the minimax theorem
• Utility theory
• Cooperative versus noncooperative games
• The Nash solution
• Theory of moves
• Biological applications
• Sequential and simultaneous truels
• Power in voting: the paradox of the chair’s position
• The von Neumann–Morgenstern theory
• The Banzhaf value in voting games

The normal-form table illustrates the concept of a saddlepoint, or entry, in a payoff matrix at which the expected gain of each participant (row or column) has the highest guaranteed payoff.

game theory

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• BBC News - What exactly is 'game theory'?
• PBS - American Experience - Game Theory Explained
• Pressbooks - Senior Seminar Online Portfolio - Game Theory
• The Library of Economics and Liberty - Game Theory
• Academia - Game theory
• The Ohio State University - Department of Mathematics - What is... Game Theory?
• Carnegie Mellon University - School of Computer Science - Introduction to Game Theory
• Social Sciences Libretexts - Game Theory
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Game Theory
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Game Theory
• Game theory - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

game theory , branch of applied mathematics that provides tools for analyzing situations in which parties, called players, make decisions that are interdependent. This interdependence causes each player to consider the other player’s possible decisions, or strategies, in formulating strategy . A solution to a game describes the optimal decisions of the players, who may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests, and the outcomes that may result from these decisions.

Although game theory can be and has been used to analyze parlour games, its applications are much broader. In fact, game theory was originally developed by the Hungarian-born American mathematician John von Neumann and his Princeton University colleague Oskar Morgenstern , a German-born American economist, to solve problems in economics . In their book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944), von Neumann and Morgenstern asserted that the mathematics developed for the physical sciences, which describes the workings of a disinterested nature, was a poor model for economics. They observed that economics is much like a game, wherein players anticipate each other’s moves, and therefore requires a new kind of mathematics, which they called game theory. Game theory was further developed in the 1950s by American mathematician John Nash , who established the mathematical principles of game theory, a branch of mathematics that examines the rivalries between competitors with mixed interests. (The name for this branch of studies may be somewhat of a misnomer—game theory generally does not share the fun or frivolity associated with games.)

(Read Steven Pinker’s Britannica entry on rationality.)

Game theory has been applied to a wide variety of situations in which the choices of players interact to affect the outcome. In stressing the strategic aspects of decision making , or aspects controlled by the players rather than by pure chance, the theory both supplements and goes beyond the classical theory of probability . It has been used, for example, to determine what political coalitions or business conglomerates are likely to form, the optimal price at which to sell products or services in the face of competition, the power of a voter or a bloc of voters, whom to select for a jury, the best site for a manufacturing plant, and the behaviour of certain animals and plants in their struggle for survival. It has even been used to challenge the legality of certain voting systems.

It would be surprising if any one theory could address such an enormous range of “games,” and in fact there is no single game theory. A number of theories have been proposed, each applicable to different situations and each with its own concepts of what constitutes a solution. This article describes some simple games, discusses different theories, and outlines principles underlying game theory. Additional concepts and methods that can be used to analyze and solve decision problems are treated in the article optimization .

Games can be classified according to certain significant features, the most obvious of which is the number of players. Thus, a game can be designated as being a one-person, two-person, or n -person (with n greater than two) game, with games in each category having their own distinctive features. In addition, a player need not be an individual; it may be a nation, a corporation, or a team comprising many people with shared interests.

In games of perfect information, such as chess , each player knows everything about the game at all times. Poker , on the other hand, is an example of a game of imperfect information because players do not know all of their opponents’ cards.

The extent to which the goals of the players coincide or conflict is another basis for classifying games. Constant-sum games are games of total conflict, which are also called games of pure competition. Poker, for example, is a constant-sum game because the combined wealth of the players remains constant, though its distribution shifts in the course of play.

Players in constant-sum games have completely opposed interests, whereas in variable-sum games they may all be winners or losers. In a labour-management dispute , for example, the two parties certainly have some conflicting interests, but both will benefit if a strike is averted.

Variable-sum games can be further distinguished as being either cooperative or noncooperative. In cooperative games players can communicate and, most important, make binding agreements; in noncooperative games players may communicate, but they cannot make binding agreements, such as an enforceable contract. An automobile salesperson and a potential customer will be engaged in a cooperative game if they agree on a price and sign a contract. However, the dickering that they do to reach this point will be noncooperative. Similarly, when people bid independently at an auction they are playing a noncooperative game, even though the high bidder agrees to complete the purchase.

Finally, a game is said to be finite when each player has a finite number of options, the number of players is finite, and the game cannot go on indefinitely. Chess, checkers , poker , and most parlour games are finite. Infinite games are more subtle and will only be touched upon in this article.

A game can be described in one of three ways: in extensive, normal, or characteristic-function form. (Sometimes these forms are combined, as described in the section Theory of moves .) Most parlour games, which progress step by step, one move at a time, can be modeled as games in extensive form. Extensive-form games can be described by a “game tree,” in which each turn is a vertex of the tree, with each branch indicating the players’ successive choices.

The normal (strategic) form is primarily used to describe two-person games. In this form a game is represented by a payoff matrix, wherein each row describes the strategy of one player and each column describes the strategy of the other player. The matrix entry at the intersection of each row and column gives the outcome of each player choosing the corresponding strategy. The payoffs to each player associated with this outcome are the basis for determining whether the strategies are “in equilibrium,” or stable.

The characteristic-function form is generally used to analyze games with more than two players. It indicates the minimum value that each coalition of players—including single-player coalitions—can guarantee for itself when playing against a coalition made up of all the other players.

One-person games are also known as games against nature. With no opponents, the player only needs to list available options and then choose the optimal outcome. When chance is involved the game might seem to be more complicated, but in principle the decision is still relatively simple. For example, a person deciding whether to carry an umbrella weighs the costs and benefits of carrying or not carrying it. While this person may make the wrong decision, there does not exist a conscious opponent. That is, nature is presumed to be completely indifferent to the player’s decision, and the person can base his decision on simple probabilities. One-person games hold little interest for game theorists.

• Corpus ID: 59763496

RESEARCH TOPICS IN GAME THEORY

• M. Humphreys , Bernd Beber
• Published 2004
• Political Science

24 References

A course in game theory, social choice theory, game theory and positive political theory, bargaining theory with applications, individual strategy and social structure, games with incomplete information played by "bayesian" players, i-iii: part i. the basic model&, epistemic conditions for nash equilibrium, games with incomplete information played by “bayesian” players part ii. bayesian equilibrium points, revealing preferences: empirical estimation of a crisis bargaining game with incomplete information, incumbent performance and electoral control, the politics of risking peace: do hawks or doves deliver the olive branch, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Topic Information

Participating journals, topic editors.

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Game Theory and Applications

Dear Colleagues,

Game theory, which is the study of strategic decision making, was first developed as a branch of microeconomics. Since the seminal work of John Von Neumann, John Nash, and others, it has been recognised that there is an optimal strategy in the context of complex interactions (games) between two or more parties (players) that can lead to a predictable outcome (payoff). In practical situations, this outcome can often be quantitative and amenable to arithmetic operations (cost, number of infected people, number of vaccinated people, etc.), but it can be qualitative in nature (such as risk, readiness level, health state, etc.). A typical game defined in game theory has two or more players, a set of strategies available to these players, and a corresponding set of pay-off values (sometimes called utility values) for each player (which are, in the case of two-player games, often presented as a pay-off matrix). Game theory can be classified into two broad domains: non-cooperative game theory and cooperative game theory. Game Theory has become one of the conventional theoretical frameworks to model important decision-making processes in many aspects of life. In recent years, game theory has been adopted in diverse fields of study, such as evolutionary biology, sociology, psychology, political science and computer science. Game theory is used to study many phenomena and behavioural patterns in human societies and socio-economical systems, such as the emergence of and means of sustaining cooperation in communities and organisations, modelling of unethical or criminal behaviour, or the decision-making processes involved in vaccination against epidemics. Game Theory provides insight into peculiar behavioural interactions such as cooperative interactions within groups of animals, the bargaining and exchange in a marriage, or the incentivisation of Scottish salmon farmers. Game theory has gained such wide applicability due to the prevalence of strategic decision-making scenarios across different disciplines. The applications of game theory have become so diverse that it now spans many major disciplines. As such, it is eminently suitable to be defined as a ‘Topic’, which covers several MDPI journals. Therefore, we are proposing that ‘Game Theory and Applications’ is made a ‘Topic’ across the following four MDPI journals: [ Algorithms , Games , Information , Mathematics ]. As the topic editor, on behalf of my colleagues in the Topic board, I seek articles that could enrich this Topic collection. Papers can be one of the following types: [Articles, Reviews, etc.].

Dr. Mahendra Piraveenan Dr. Samit Bhattacharrya Topic Editors

•  game theory
•  evolutionary game theory
•  cooperative game theory
•  non-cooperative game theory
•  Nash equilibrium
•  quantal response equilibrium
•  bounded rationality
•  vaccination uptake modelling
•  coordination games
•  differential games
•  prisoners’ dilemma
•  zero-sum games

• Immediately share your ideas ahead of publication and establish your research priority;
• Protect your idea from being stolen with this time-stamped preprint article;
• Enhance the exposure and impact of your research;
• Receive feedback from your peers in advance;
• Have it indexed in Web of Science (Preprint Citation Index), Google Scholar, Crossref, SHARE, PrePubMed, Scilit and Europe PMC.

Published Papers (20 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Submit your Manuscript

Submit your abstract.

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Prof. Muhamet Yildiz

Departments

As taught in.

• Game Theory

Learning Resource Types

Topics in game theory, course description.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Game Theory?

• How It Works
• Useful Terms

The Nash Equilibrium

• Limitations

The Bottom Line

• Behavioral Economics

Game Theory: A Comprehensive Guide

Adam Hayes, Ph.D., CFA, is a financial writer with 15+ years Wall Street experience as a derivatives trader. Besides his extensive derivative trading expertise, Adam is an expert in economics and behavioral finance. Adam received his master's in economics from The New School for Social Research and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in sociology. He is a CFA charterholder as well as holding FINRA Series 7, 55 & 63 licenses. He currently researches and teaches economic sociology and the social studies of finance at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Investopedia / Katie Kerpel

Game theory is the study of how and why individuals and entities (called players) make decisions about their situations. It is a theoretical framework for conceiving social scenarios among competing players.

In some respects, game theory is the science of strategy, or at least of the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting.

Game theory is used in a variety of fields to lay out various situations and predict their most likely outcomes. Businesses may use it, for example, to set prices, decide whether to acquire another firm, and determine how to handle a lawsuit.

Key Takeaways

• Game theory is the study of how and why players make decisions about their circumstances.
• The intention of game theory is to produce optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting. 
• Using game theory, real-world scenarios for such situations as pricing competition and product releases (and many more) can be laid out and their outcomes predicted. 
• Scenarios include the prisoner's dilemma and the dictator game among many others.
• Different types of game theory include cooperative/non-cooperative, zero-sum /non-zero-sum, and simultaneous/sequential.

Game Theory

How game theory works.

The goal of game theory is to explain the strategic actions of two or more players in a given situation with set rules and outcomes. Any time a situation with two or more players involves known payouts or quantifiable consequences, we can use game theory to help determine the most likely outcomes.

The focus of game theory is the game, which is an interactive situation that involves rational players. The key to game theory is that one player's payoff is contingent on the strategy implemented by the other player. 

The game identifies the players' identities, preferences, available strategies, and how these strategies affect the outcome. Depending on the model, various other requirements or assumptions may be necessary.

Game theory has a wide range of applications, including psychology, evolutionary biology, war, politics, economics, and business. Despite its many advances, game theory is still a young and developing science.

According to game theory, the actions and choices of all the participants affect the outcome of each. It's assumed players within the game are rational and will strive to maximize their payoffs in the game.

Useful Terms in Game Theory

Here are a few terms commonly used in the study of game theory:

• Game : Any set of circumstances that has a result dependent on the actions of two or more decision-makers (players).
• Players : A strategic decision-maker within the context of the game.
• Strategy : A complete plan of action a player will take given the set of circumstances that might arise within the game.
• Payoff :   The payout a player receives from arriving at a particular outcome. The payout can be in any quantifiable form, from dollars to  utility .
• Information set : The information available at a given point in the game. The term "information set" is most usually applied when the game has a sequential component.
• Equilibrium : The point in a game where both players have made their decisions and an outcome is reached.

The key pioneers of game theory were mathematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern in the 1940s. Mathematician John Nash is regarded by many as providing the first significant extension of the von Neumann and Morgenstern work.

Nash equilibrium is an outcome reached that, once achieved, means no player can increase payoff by changing decisions unilaterally. It can also be thought of as a "no regrets" outcome in the sense that once a decision is made, the player will have no regrets about it, considering the consequences.

The Nash equilibrium is reached over time, normally. However, once the Nash equilibrium is reached, it will not be deviated from. In such a case, consider how a unilateral move would affect the situation. Does it make any sense? It shouldn't, and that's why the Nash equilibrium outcome is described as "no regrets."

Generally, there can be more than one equilibrium in a game. However, this usually occurs in games with more complex elements than two choices by two players. In simultaneous games that are repeated over time, one of these multiple equilibria is reached after some trial and error.

This scenario of different choices over time before reaching equilibrium is most often played out in the business world when two firms are determining prices for highly interchangeable products, such as airfare or soft drinks.

Impact of Game Theory

Game theory is present in almost every industry or field of research. Its expansive theory can pertain to many situations, making it a versatile and important theory. Here are several fields of study directly impacted by game theory.

Game theory brought about a revolution in economics by addressing crucial problems in prior mathematical economic models. For instance, neoclassical economics struggled to explain entrepreneurial anticipation and could not handle the imperfect competition. Game theory turned attention away from steady-state equilibrium toward the market process.

Economists often use game theory to explain oligopoly firm behavior. It helps to predict likely outcomes when firms engage in certain behaviors, such as price-fixing and collusion .

In business, game theory is beneficial for modeling competing behaviors between economic agents. Businesses often have several strategic choices that affect their ability to realize economic gain. For example, businesses may face dilemmas such as whether to retire existing products and develop new ones or employ new marketing strategies. 

Businesses can often choose their opponent as well. Some focus on external forces and compete against other market participants. Others set internal goals and strive to be better than their previous versions.

Whether external or internal, companies are always competing for resources, attempting to hire the best candidates away from rivals, and dissuade customers from choosing competing goods.

Game theory in business may most resemble a game tree, as shown below. A company may start in position one and must decide on two outcomes. However, there are continually other decisions to be made; the final payoff amount is not known until the final decision has been processed.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Project Management

Project management involves social aspects of game theory, as different participants may have different influences. For example, a project manager may be motivated to successfully complete a building development project. Meanwhile, the construction worker may be motivated to work slower for safety or to delay the project to add more billable hours.

When dealing with an internal team, game theory may be less prevalent as all participants working for the same employer often have a greater shared interest for success. However, third-party consultants or external parties assisting with a project may be motivated by other factors separate from the project's success.

Consumer Product Pricing

The strategy of Black Friday shopping is at the heart of game theory. The concept holds that should companies reduce prices, more consumers will buy more goods. The relationship between a consumer, a good, and the financial exchange that transfers ownership plays a major part in game theory, as each consumer has a different set of expectations.

Other than sweeping sales in advance of the holiday season, companies must utilize game theory when pricing products for launch or in anticipation of competition from rival goods . A balance must be found. Price a good too low and it won't reap profit. Price a good too high and it might push customers toward a substitute .

Types of Game Theory

Cooperative vs. non-cooperative games.

Although there are many types of game theory, such as symmetric/asymmetric, simultaneous/sequential, and so on, cooperative and non-cooperative game theories are the most common. 

Cooperative game theory deals with how coalitions, or cooperative groups, interact when only the payoffs are known. It is a game between coalitions of players rather than between individuals, and it questions how groups form and how they allocate the payoff among players .

Non-cooperative game theory deals with how rational economic agents deal with each other to achieve their own goals. The most common non-cooperative game is the strategic game, in which only the available strategies and the outcomes that result from a combination of choices are listed. A simplistic example of a real-world non-cooperative game is rock-paper-scissors.  

Zero-Sum vs. Non-Zero-Sum Games

When there is a direct conflict between multiple parties striving for the same outcome, it is often called a zero-sum game . This means that for every winner, there is a loser. Alternatively, it means that the collective net benefit received is equal to the collective net benefit lost. Lots of sporting events are a zero-sum game as one team wins and another team loses.

A non-zero-sum game is one in which all participants can win or lose at the same time. Consider business partnerships that are mutually beneficial and foster value for both entities. Instead of competing and attempting to win at the expense of the other, both parties benefit.

Investing and trading stocks is sometimes considered a zero-sum game. After all, one market participant buys a stock and another participant sells that same stock for the same price. However, because different investors have different risk appetites and investing goals, it may be mutually beneficial for both parties to transact.

Simultaneous Move vs. Sequential Move Games

Simultaneous move situations, which occur frequently in life, mean each participant must continually make decisions at the same time that their opponent is making decisions. As companies devise their marketing, product development, and operational plans, competing companies are doing the same thing at the same time.

In some cases, there is an intentional staggering of decision-making steps, enabling one party to see the other party's moves before making their own. This is usually present in negotiations ; one party lists their demands, then the other party has a designated amount of time to respond and list their own.

One Shot vs. Repeated Games

Game theory can begin and end in a single instance. Like much of life, the underlying competition starts, progresses, ends, and cannot be redone. This is often the case with equity traders, who must wisely choose their entry point and exit point, as their decision may not easily be undone or retried.

On the other hand, some repeated games continue on and seemingly never end. These types of games often contain the same participants each time, and each party has the knowledge of what occurred previously.

For example, consider rival companies trying to price their goods. Whenever one makes a price adjustment, so may the other. This circular competition repeats itself across product cycles or sale seasonality.

In the example below, a depiction of the Prisoner's Dilemma (discussed in the next section) is shown. In this depiction, after the first iteration occurs, there is no payoff. Instead, a second iteration of the game occurs, bringing with it a new set of outcomes not possible under one-shot games.

Examples of Game Theory

There are several games, or situations, that game theory analyzes. Here are a few:

The Prisoner's Dilemma

The prisoner's dilemma is the most well-known example of game theory. Consider the example of two criminals arrested for a crime. Prosecutors have no hard evidence to convict them. However, to gain a confession, officials remove the prisoners from their solitary cells and question each one in separate chambers. Neither prisoner has the means to communicate with the other. Officials present four deals, often displayed as a 2 x 2 box.

• If both confess, they will each receive a three-year prison sentence. 
• If Prisoner 1 confesses, but Prisoner 2 does not, Prisoner 1 will get one year and Prisoner 2 will get five years. 
• If Prisoner 2 confesses, but Prisoner 1 does not, Prisoner 1 will get five years, and Prisoner 2 will get one year. 
• If neither confesses, each will serve two years in prison. 

The most favorable strategy is to not confess. However, neither is aware of the other's strategy and, without certainty that one will not confess, both will likely confess and receive a three-year prison sentence. The Nash equilibrium suggests that in a prisoner's dilemma, both players will make the move that is best for them individually but worse for them collectively.

" Tit for tat " is said to be the optimal strategy in a prisoner's dilemma. Tit for tat was introduced by Anatol Rapoport, who developed a strategy in which each participant in an iterated prisoner's dilemma follows a course of action consistent with their opponent's previous turn. For example, if provoked, a player subsequently responds with retaliation; if unprovoked, the player cooperates.

The image below depicts the dilemma where the choice of the participant in the column and the choice of the participant in the row may clash. For example, both parties may receive the most favorable outcome if both choose row/column 1. However, each faces the risk of strong adverse outcomes should the other party not choose the same outcome.

Dictator Game 

This is a simple game in which Player A must decide how to split a cash prize with Player B, who has no input into Player A’s decision. While this is not a game theory strategy per se, it does provide some interesting insights into people’s behavior. Experiments reveal about 50% keep all the money to themselves, 5% split it equally, and the other 45% give the other participant a smaller share.

The dictator game is closely related to the ultimatum game, in which Player A is given a set amount of money, part of which has to be given to Player B, who can accept or reject the amount given. The catch is if the second player rejects the amount offered, both A and B get nothing. The dictator and ultimatum games hold important lessons for charitable giving and philanthropy.

Volunteer’s Dilemma

In a volunteer’s dilemma, someone has to undertake a chore or job for the common good. The worst possible outcome is realized if nobody volunteers. For example, consider a company in which  accounting fraud is rampant , though top management is unaware of it.

Some junior employees in the accounting department are aware of the fraud but hesitate to tell top management because it would result in the employees involved in the fraud being fired and most likely prosecuted.

Being labeled as a whistleblower may also have some repercussions down the line. But if nobody volunteers, the large-scale fraud may result in the company’s eventual bankruptcy and the loss of everyone’s jobs.

The Centipede Game

The centipede game is an extensive-form game in which two players alternately get a chance to take the larger share of a slowly increasing money stash. It is arranged so that if a player passes the stash to their opponent who then takes it, the player receives a smaller amount than if they had taken the pot.

The centipede game concludes as soon as a player takes the stash, with that player getting the larger portion and the other player getting the smaller portion. The game has a pre-defined total number of rounds, which are known to each player in advance.

Game theory exists in almost every facet of life. Because the decisions of other people around you impact your day, game theory pertains to personal relationships, shopping habits, media intake, and hobbies.

Types of Game Theory Strategies

Game theory participants can decide between a few primary ways to play their game. In general, each participant must decide what level of risk they are willing to take and how far they are willing to go to pursue the best possible outcome.

Maximax Strategy

A maximax strategy involves no hedging. The participant is either all in or all out; they'll either win big or face the worst consequence. Consider a new start-up company introducing new products to the market.

Its new products may result in the company's market cap increasing fifty-fold. On the other hand, a failed product launch will leave the company bankrupt. The participant is willing to take a chance on achieving the best outcome even if the worst outcome is possible.

Maximin Strategy

A maximin strategy in game theory results in the participant choosing the best of the worst payoff. The participant has decided to hedge risk and sacrifice full benefit in exchange for avoiding the worst outcome.

Often, companies face and accept this strategy when considering lawsuits. By settling out of court and avoiding a public trial, companies agree to an adverse outcome. However, that outcome could have been worse if the case had gone to trial.

Dominant Strategy

In a dominant strategy, a participant performs actions that are the best outcome for the play, irrespective of what other participants decide to do. In business, this may be a situation where a company decides to scale and expand to a new market, regardless of whether a competing company has decided to move into the market as well. In Prisoner's Dilemma, the dominant strategy would be to confess.

Pure Strategy

Pure strategy entails the least amount of strategic decision-making, as pure strategy is simply a defined choice that is made regardless of external forces or actions of others.

Consider a game of rock-paper-scissors in which one participant decides to throw the same shape with each trial. As the outcome for this participant is well-defined in advance (outcomes are either a specific shape or not that specific shape), the strategy is defined as pure.

Mixed Strategy

A mixed strategy may seem like random chance, but there is much thought that must go into devising a plan of mixing elements or actions.

Consider the relationship between a baseball pitcher and batter. The pitcher cannot throw the same pitch each time. Otherwise, the batter could predict what would come next. Instead, the pitcher must mix their strategy from pitch to pitch to create a sense of unpredictability that they hope to benefit from.

Limitations of Game Theory

The biggest issue with game theory is that, like most other economic models, it relies on the assumption that people are rational actors who are self-interested and utility-maximizing. Of course, we are social beings who do cooperate often at our own expense.

Game theory cannot account for the fact that in some situations we may fall into a Nash equilibrium, and other times not, depending on the social context and who the players are.

In addition, game theory often struggles to factor in human elements such as loyalty, honesty, or empathy. Though statistical and mathematical computations can dictate what a best course of action should be, humans may not take this course due to incalculable and complex scenarios of self-sacrifice or manipulation.

Game theory may analyze a set of behaviors but it cannot truly forecast the human element.

What Are the Games Being Played in Game Theory?

Game theory tries to explain the strategic actions of two or more players in a given situation with set rules and outcomes. While used in several disciplines, game theory is most notably used in the study of business and economics.

The games may involve how two competitor firms will react to price cuts by the other, whether a firm should acquire another, or how traders in a stock market may react to price changes. In theoretic terms, these games may be categorized as prisoner's dilemmas, the dictator game, the hawk-and-dove, and Bach or Stravinsky.

What Are Some of the Assumptions About These Games?

Like many economic models, game theory contains a set of strict assumptions that must hold for the theory to make good predictions in practice. First, all players are utility-maximizing rational actors that have full information about the game, the rules, and the consequences. Players are not allowed to communicate or interact with one another. Possible outcomes are not only known in advance but also cannot be changed. The number of players in a game can theoretically be infinite, but most games will involve only two players.

What Is a Nash Equilibrium?

The Nash equilibrium is an important concept referring to a stable state in a game where no player can gain an advantage by unilaterally changing a strategy, assuming the other participants also do not change their strategies. The Nash equilibrium provides the solution concept in a non-cooperative (adversarial) game. It is named after John Nash, who received the Nobel Prize in 1994 for his work.

Who Came Up With Game Theory?

Game theory is largely attributed to the work in the 1940s of mathematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern. It was developed extensively by many other researchers and scholars in the 1950s. It remains an area of active research and applied science to this day.

Game theory is the study of how competitive strategies and participant actions can influence the outcome of a situation. It's relevant to war, biology, and many other facets of life. Game theory is used in business to represent strategic interactions in which the outcome for one company or product depends on actions taken by other companies or products.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Game Theory ."

Princeton University Press. " Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: Overview ."

MIT Libraries. “ Year 91 – 1951: ‘Non-cooperative Games’ by John Nash, in: Annals of Mathematics 54 (2) .”

34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. “ No-Regret Learning and Mixed Nash Equilibria: They Do Not Mix .” 

David Shapiro et al. “ Principles of Economics 3e: 10.2 Oligopoly .” OpenStax , 2022.

Bin Xu et al. “ Cycle Frequency in Standard Rock-Paper-Scissors Games: Evidence From Experimental Economics .” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , vol. 392, no. 20, Oct. 15, 2013, pp. 4997-5005.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Prisoner’s Dilemma ."

Anatol Rapoport. " Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution ," Pages 27-28. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1974.

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. “ Tit for Tat and Beyond: The Legendary Work of Anatol Rapoport .”

Christoph Engel. “ Dictator Games: A Meta Study .” Pages 6-8.

ScienceDirect. “ Ultimatum Game .”

Psychology Today. “ Exploring the Volunteer's Dilemma .”

FasterCapital. “ Game Theory: Analyzing the Centipede Game's Optimal Strategies .”

The Nobel Prize. " John F. Nash Jr. "

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

Peer Reviewed

The role of narrative in misinformation games

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Several existing media literacy games aim to increase resilience to misinformation. However, they lack variety in their approaches. The vast majority focus on assessing information accuracy, with limited exploration of socio-emotional influences of misinformation adoption. Misinformation correction and educational games have explored how narrative persuasion influences personal beliefs, as identification with certain narratives can frame the interpretation of information. We created a preliminary framework for designers seeking to develop narrative-driven misinformation games that synthesizes findings from psychology, narrative theory, and game design. In addition, we conducted a narrative-centered content analysis of existing media literacy games.

Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, USA

Information School, University of Washington, USA

Research Questions

• How can the narratives of existing misinformation games help address psychological drivers of misinformation?
• What aspects of narrative design are important to consider in the context of games for misinformation education?

Essay Summary

• We compiled findings from misinformation psychology, game studies, and narrative theory to inform a content analysis of how existing misinformation education games are utilizing narrative to address psychological drivers of misinformation.
• Researchers across the fields of misinformation, educational games, and communication theory have used narrative to 1) promote identification with opposing viewpoints, 2) reduce counterarguing and reactance, and 3) facilitate connection to educational outcomes.
• We summarize our findings into the misinformation game narrative design (MGND) framework, which can be used by researchers and designers to create game-based misinformation interventions targeted at specific audiences.

Implications

Misinformation and disinformation have many widespread and often harmful effects on society due to their ability to shape people’s beliefs and behaviors (Ecker et al., 2022). This has led to calls to feature misinformation more predominantly in mainstream media literacy curricula (Dame Adjin-Tettey, 2022). Media literacy was shown to positively correlate with correct determination of the accuracy of online information (Kahne & Bowyer, 2017).

Games have been suggested as a promising educational medium for effective media literacy interventions (Chang et al., 2020). The immersive nature of games allows players to creatively engage with real-world situations as thought experiments (Schulzke, 2014), allowing for a safe space to investigate complex issues. Indeed, researchers and educators have created games that aim to improve media literacy (Contreras-Espinosa & Eguia-Gomez, 2023; Kiili et al., 2023) and effectively inoculate players from misinformation and disinformation (Basol et al., 2020; Maertens et al., 2021; Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019; van der Linden et al., 2017). However, there are limitations to the existing body of game-based misinformation interventions, namely their lack of theoretical variance. The majority are based in inoculation theory (Kiili et al., 2023), and recent work has suggested that inoculation-based interventions may simply increase the likelihood of conservative reporting, rather than critical engagement with misinformation (Modirrousta-Galian & Higham, 2023). While informative, these interventions primarily address rational processes of misinformation correction (i.e., teaching basic media literacy competencies). However, the processing and subsequent adoption of misinformation is also heavily influenced by psychological drivers and personal belief (Ecker et al., 2022). Thus, it is essential for designers of misinformation education games to facilitate player exploration of the socio-emotional influences that can lead to the acceptance and spread of misinformation.

Research on misinformation correction and educational games has explored a common method to engage with people on an emotional basis: narrative (Cohen et al., 2015; Domínguez et al., 2016; Iten et al., 2018; Mahood & Hanus, 2017; Ophir et al., 2020; Sangalang et al., 2019). We define narrative as a story that contains event(s), character(s), setting(s), structure, a clear point of view, and a sense of time (Chatman, 1978). Reading, processing, and identifying with narratives is a fundamental component of how we organize our interpretations of reality (Bruner, 1990). However, despite the effectiveness of narrative persuasion in both misinformation correction (Cohen et al., 2015; Ophir et al., 2020; Sangalang et al., 2019) and educational games (Domínguez et al., 2016; Iten et al., 2018; Mahood & Hanus, 2017), current misinformation games are notably lacking in narrative-driven learning mechanisms, as their primary focus tends to be on improving skill-based or knowledge-based information literacy (Contreras-Espinosa & Eguia-Gomez, 2023). There is a strong potential for using narrative as a tool for prompting player empathy and emotional connection within misinformation education (Grace & Liang, 2024).

Misinformation game narrative design (MGND) framework

We synthesized possible benefits of narrative-based education games from communication theory and game design and developed an understanding of how key narrative elements, such as those presented in Chatman (1978), may synergize with game mechanics to emotionally connect with players. Using these learnings as a basis, we then performed a content analysis of current misinformation education games. We used our findings to map an initial framework for designers seeking to create narrative-driven misinformation games. We intend to aid these designers, as well as educators and practitioners, in tying certain narrative elements to their intended learning outcomes. Our proposed design framework, the misinformation game narrative design (MGND) framework, consists of ten dimensions, each of which contains several elements. We began by choosing relevant dimensions (i.e., structure, setting, and characters) from Chatman’s definition of narrative (1978). We then integrated game design elements, such as player agency and dynamics , as well as considerations from misinformation psychology, namely the psychological drivers and the correction type the designer is creating. The intended audience must also be centered through the design. It is possible for a game narrative to have multiple elements within each dimension or exist on a sliding scale between two elements. The dimensions are as follows: educational goals, intended audience, psychological drivers, narrative structure, setting, tone, player agency, player morality, ending, and player dynamics.

Educational goals: What arethe intended educational goals? We derived the following goals from Barzilai and Chinn’s (2020) educational lenses for a post-truth world:

• Addressing not knowing how to know . Learners may have gaps in their knowledge and skills for critically dealing with misinformation in digital spheres. Educational games can remedy this by promoting civic, digital, and scientific literacy, as well as inoculating against misinformation.
• Addressing fallible ways of knowing . Adoption of misinformation is strongly influenced by cognitive biases. Educational games can mitigate this by teaching players about cognitive and socioemotional biases and cultivating epistemic vigilance through evaluating the reliability and trustworthiness of information.
• Addressing not caring enough about truth . Misinformation is often propagated by actors who do not necessarily care that they are being misleading or if they are being misled. Educational games can address this by teaching players about the potential consequences of not taking misleading information seriously.
• Addressing disagreeing about how to know . People have ways of seeing the world that are often in conflict with each other. Educational games should emphasize authoritative sources and incorporate debunking strategies when necessary. At the same time, they should teach players how to discuss and evaluate differing beliefs while recognizing and coordinating various epistemologies.

Goals 1 and 2 focus on information literacy and prebunking and are frequently addressed in the current body of misinformation games . However, there is currently limited exploration of goals 3 and 4, and we provide examples of how games can be framed around those goals in Appendix C. All approaches have benefits and drawbacks, but one might be preferable depending on the context, such as the audience or the type of misinformation.

Intended audience : Who is the intended audience? Games can be created for a (1) general audience , (2) specific audience , or (3) somewhere in between . Designing for general audiences increases the potential reach of the game, while designing for targeted communities creates avenues for designers to utilize narrative affordances. For example, designers could consider creating characters with which target groups may very strongly identify and use those characters as vehicles to explore various aspects of players’ beliefs. This has the potential to engage players in discussions with reduced risk of reactance and counterarguing.

Psychological drivers : What psychological aspects of misinformation does the game touch upon? In our content analysis, we used Shane’s (2020) framework as a basis for identifying a handful of psychological drivers addressed by existing misinformation games (1–5), and we also included one additional driver, emotion, as some games address the influence of emotive information and emotional state on false beliefs (Ecker et al., 2022):

• Third person effect (the tendency to assume that misinformation affects others more than oneself)
• Social pressure (the inclination to repost and believe misinformation shared by one’s social circles)
• Confirmation bias (the tendency to believe information that verifies one’s existing beliefs)
• The rabbit hole effect (a pathway leading towards more extreme misinformation)
• Heuristics (indicators used to make quick judgments)

In addition, designers could also consider other psychological drivers or social factors, such as cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, or cognitive miserliness. This would also help establish more specific learning outcomes of the game. 

Narrative structure: How does the story progress from beginning to end? We identified three possibilities for the progression of the story: (1) linear , where the story follows a fixed and predictable path, (2) plot twist , where players are abruptly introduced to new information halfway through an otherwise linear story, and (3) branching , where there are multiple paths and multiple endings that the player can discover based on their actions. These choices may have an impact on how people feel at the end of the game and prompt reflection on their role or agency. Furthermore, different modalities may afford different structures. For example, a linear structure would work better for a digital escape room than a physical one, where players can more efficiently examine different parts of the puzzle in parallel. 

Setting : Where does the story take place?  The story can take place in either realistic or fantastical setting.  A realistic setting provides an opportunity for a game to reflect prominent mis- or disinformation issues from the modern day. On the contrary, a fantastical setting may allow for a narrative that can appeal to broader audiences, especially in polarized communities and increase the longevity of the game as it will not feel out of date when new misinformation issues become prevalent. Several existing misinformation games chose a dystopian approach, a fantastical setting that still affords serious conversations about the harm of disinformation present today. Designers could also choose to integrate elements from both: realistic elements to keep the game grounded, but with added fantastical elements to engage younger audiences. 

Tone : How does the story convey the topic of misinformation to players? Games can take a humorous tone to lighten the situation, a serious tone to underline the importance of the topic, or incorporate elements of both. This can be determined by considering the audience and the type of misinformation issues that are being discussed in the game. For instance, it would be important to be respectful when incorporating certain misinformation scenarios that harmed people in the real world.

Player agency: Do the game mechanics allow the player to make choices that affect the narrative in significant ways? Based on players’ ability to influence the narrative, the game can allow for different levels of their agency: (1) high agency that permits players to make impactful choices and witness their effects, (2) no agency that keeps players bounded within a set narrative, and (3) limited agency that allows players to make choices, but none that are particularly impactful. In some situations, providing agency may be deemed especially important (e.g., creating a game that empowers players to take action against misinformation), but in other situations, having players experience one particular path is critical for meeting the learning goals (e.g., having players fall for misinformation themselves to discuss the third-person effect).

Player morality : What role does the player character serve within the narrative? In terms of ethical considerations, characters can take on different roles: (1) a hero , by choosing morally correct options, (2) a villain, by actively sowing discord, or (3) a morally gray character , by carrying out questionable actions despite their personal reservations. Taking the perspective of a villain may make the game more engaging, but it might be less suitable in certain misinformation situations. Taking on a role of a morally gray charactermay prompt players to reflect on the choices they make after the gameplay. 

Ending : What note does the story finish on? Depending on the finishing note, the story can conclude with (1) a positive ending that might provide players with hope that their actions can make real change, (2) a negative ending that may serve as a reminder of the real harm caused by misinformation, and (3) variable endings , in which the ending is determined by players’ in-game actions. Variable endings may work especially well in social play situations where players get to discuss their choices with others and empathize with the decisions others may have made in the game (Yin & Xiao, 2022).

Player dynamics : How do players interact with each other, if at all? Players’ ability (or lack thereof) to interact with each other during the game determines player dynamics. Many narrative games are individual , but some modalities, such as escape rooms or tabletop games, are suited to social play, in which players can progress through the narrative and construct elements of the story together. Social play could especially be useful for games that require deeper reflection and discussion or that aim to influence players’ attitudes or beliefs, as opposed to more skill- or knowledge-based games.

In sum, the MGND framework allows the designer to carefully consider with which misinformation-related experiences they would like the players to engage through the narrative and game mechanics. This framework could be used in tandem with other game design frameworks, such as the Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics (MDA) framework (Hunicke et al., 2004), to co-design experiences for specific stakeholders and their associated misinformation contexts. We plan to use the MGND framework to co-design culturally specific narratives through our work with universities and libraries internationally. 

We build from the theoretical background and present three specific hypotheses as to how narrative could supplement the outcomes of playing misinformation games.

Hypothesis 1: Narrative can facilitate identification with opposing viewpoints.

People who have already adopted misinformed beliefs require debunking rather than prebunking. This has led to the suggestion of implementing counter-narratives as a way to deconstruct strongly held beliefs (White, 2022), such as counteracting misinformed beliefs among smokers (Ophir et al., 2020; Sangalang et al., 2019). Evoking a strong emotional response and identification with the main character was shown to have mediating effects on misinformed beliefs (Cohen et al., 2015; de Graaf et al., 2012; Ophir et al., 2020). In game studies, research has shown that perspective taking in virtual environments increases empathy (Estrada Villalba & Jacques-García, 2021). Players are capable of feeling deep emotional attachment to and identification with characters in narrative games (Bopp et al., 2019; Hefner et al., 2007; Sierra Rativa et al., 2020). This increases situational empathy for that character, regardless of their morality (Happ et al., 2013; Iten et al., 2018). Narrative game environments also provide a medium for players to understand other players with whom they may not necessarily identify closely in real life (Burgess & Jones, 2021). Though players may choose different narrative branches, they are capable of empathizing with the rationale behind other players’ decisions without necessarily agreeing with said reasons (Yin & Xiao, 2022).

Hypothesis 2: Narrative can reduce reactance and counterarguing.

Counterarguing against an attempted misinformation correction can strengthen an individual’s belief in it (Ecker, 2017). Narrative’s ability to reduce reactance offers a solution in this respect (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Slater and Rouner’s (2002) extended Elaboration Likelihood Model, which builds from Petty and Cacioppo’s (2012) Elaboration Likelihood Model, suggests that the cognitive processing of narratives suppresses resistance to persuasive messages contained within the story. The effectiveness of the messaging is associated with the degree of transportation into the story and identification with the characters (Green & Brock, 2000), which led Slater and Rouner (2002) to further argue that transportation and counterarguing are mutually exclusive. In previous work, Slater and Rouner (1996) found that narrative messages were more persuasive than factual arguments, particularly for participants with pre-existing attitudes that countered the persuasive messaging in question. There is also evidence that narratives can overwrite preexisting attitudes regarding controversial issues (Igartua & Barrios, 2012; Slater et al., 2006): Both narrative and effective debunking correctives require an individual to continuously update their mental models (de Vega, 1995; Wilkes & Leatherbarrow, 1988). The process of creating an alternative mental model that replaces the original can reduce the effects of misinformation (Johnson & Seifert, 1994).

Hypothesis 3: Narrative can facilitate educational gains.

Narrative-centered learning environments (Lester et al., 2013) are more effective in promoting enjoyment and knowledge acquisition than traditional game-based learning environments (Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015; Jackson et al., 2018; McQuiggan, Rowe, Lee, et al., 2008; McQuiggan, Rowe, & Lester, 2008; Naul & Liu, 2020). Similar to practitioners building expertise in a domain, games allow players to develop increasingly complex skills through continuously challenging them to achieve mastery in order to progress (Gee, 2003). In addition to skill acquisition, narrative-centered educational games can also spur attitude change. In a review of narrative-centered educational games, skill acquisition (measured in 33 out of 130 reviewed studies) and attitude change (measured in 15 out of 130 reviewed studies) were the most effective educational outcomes (Jackson et al., 2018). This presents an opportunity for designers of misinformation education games to not only allow for skill-building, but to also engage in the attitude changes required for debunking false beliefs. 

Our investigation was two-fold. First, we synthesized findings from misinformation psychology, narrative theory, and game design principles to compile three affordances of narrative in gamified misinformation education contexts. These were presented in the Evidence section and served as guiding principles for our content analysis, described below.

Content analysis

We compiled a list of 37 digital misinformation education games from recent review papers (Contreras-Espinosa & Eguia-Gomez, 2023; Kiili et al., 2023) and from the JournalismGames.org database (Grace & Huang, 2020). We focused on digital games as they are the dominant medium in this space. We excluded games no longer available online or not in English, and we additionally included The Euphorigen Investigation , a recent game developed at our university. We identified 11 games that qualified as narrative-driven (i.e., games containing events, character(s), setting(s), structure, point of view, and time) according to Jackson et al.’s (2018) heuristic. The authors used a consensus model to agree upon the set of games, using the heuristic to make initial selections and discussing conflicts to agreement. The entire process is summarized in Figure 2. We identified and described different aspects of these games’ narrative design, which consequently informed the design of the MGND framework. We then re-analyzed the games using the MGND framework, as presented in Figure 3.

Cite this Essay

Devasia, N., & Lee, J. H. (2024). The role of narrative in misinformation games. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-158

• / Appendix B
• / Appendix C

Bibliography

Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85 (4), 740–779. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315577210

Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2020). A review of educational responses to the “post-truth” condition: Four lenses on “post-truth” problems. Educational Psychologist, 55 (3), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition, 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91

Bopp, J. A., Müller, L. J., Aeschbach, L. F., Opwis, K., & Mekler, E. D. (2019). Exploring emotional attachment to game characters. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 313–324). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347169

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning . Harvard University Press.

Burgess, J., & Jones, C. (2021). The female video game player-character persona and emotional attachment. Persona Studies, 6 (2), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.21153/psj2020vol6no2art963

Chang, Y. K., Literat, I., Price, C., Eisman, J. I., Gardner, J., Chapman, A., & Truss, A. (2020). News literacy education in a polarized political climate: How games can teach youth to spot misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1 (4). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-020

Chatman, S. B. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film . Cornell University Press.

Cohen, J., Tal-Or, N., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2015). The tempering effect of transportation: Exploring the effects of transportation and identification during exposure to controversial two-sided narratives. Journal of Communication, 65 (2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12144

Contreras-Espinosa, R. S., & Eguia-Gomez, J. L. (2023). Evaluating video games as tools for education on fake news and misinformation. Computers, 12 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12090188

Dame Adjin-Tettey, T. (2022). Combating fake news, disinformation, and misinformation: Experimental evidence for media literacy education. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2037229

de Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39 (6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594

de Vega, M. (1995). Backward updating of mental models during continuous reading of narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (2), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.373

Domínguez, I. X., Cardona-Rivera, R. E., Vance, J. K., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). The mimesis effect: The effect of roles on player choice in interactive narrative role-playing games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (pp. 3438–3449). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858141

Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Why rebuttals may not work: The psychology of misinformation. Media Asia, 44 (2), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2017.1384145

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Estrada Villalba, É., & Jacques-García, F. A. (2021). Immersive virtual reality and its use in developing empathy in undergraduate students. In S. Latifi (Ed.), ITNG 2021 18th International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations (pp. 361–365). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70416-2_46

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1 (1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595

Grace, L. D., & Huang, K. (2020). State of newsgames 2020 . JournalismGames.com. http://journalismgames.org/Research Overview_newsgames_report_Grace_ Haung.pdf

Grace, L. D., & Liang, S. (2024). Exposure, emotion, and empathy: A theory-informed approach to misinformation and disinformation behavior change through games. In Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences . https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=hicss-57

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

Happ, C., Melzer, A., & Steffgen, G. (2013). Superman vs. bad man? The effects of empathy and game character in violent video games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16 (10), 774–778. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0695

Hefner, D., Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2007). Identification with the player character as determinant of video game enjoyment. In L. Ma, M. Rauterberg, & R. Nakatsu (Eds.), Entertainment computing – ICEC 2007 (pp. 39–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74873-1_6

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4 . https://cdn.aaai.org/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf

Igartua, J.-J., & Barrios, I. (2012). Changing real-world beliefs with controversial movies: Processes and mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Journal of Communication, 62 (3), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01640.x

Iten, G. H., Steinemann, S. T., & Opwis, K. (2018). Choosing to help monsters: A mixed-method examination of meaningful choices in narrative-rich games and interactive narratives. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems  (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173915

Jackson, L. C., O’Mara, J., Moss, J., & Jackson, A. C. (2018). A critical review of the effectiveness of narrative-driven digital educational games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 8 (4), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018100103

Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (6), 1420–1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420

Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54 (1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817

Kiili, K., Siuko, J., & Ninaus, M. (2023). Tackling misinformation with critical reading games: A systematic literature review [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8qrx3

Kshetri, N. (2023). The economics of deepfakes. Computer , 56 (8), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2023.3276068

Lester, J. C., Rowe, J. P., & Mott, B. W. (2013). Narrative-centered learning environments: A story-centric approach to educational games. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 223–237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_15

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315

Mahood, C., & Hanus, M. (2017). Role-playing video games and emotion: How transportation into the narrative mediates the relationship between immoral actions and feelings of guilt. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6 (1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000084

McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., Lee, S., & Lester, J. C. (2008). Story-based learning: The impact of narrative on learning experiences and outcomes. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aïmeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 530–539). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_56

McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., & Lester, J. C. (2008). The effects of empathetic virtual characters on presence in narrative-centered learning environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1511–1520). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357291

Modirrousta-Galian, A., & Higham, P. A. (2023). Gamified inoculation interventions do not improve discrimination between true and fake news: Reanalyzing existing research with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152 (9), 2411–2437. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001395

Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18 (3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Naul, E., & Liu, M. (2020). Why story matters: A review of narrative in serious games. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58 (3), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119859904

Ophir, Y., Romer, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020). Counteracting misleading protobacco YouTube videos: The effects of text-based and narrative correction interventions and the role of identification. International Journal of Communication , 4973–4989. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15276

Papadamou, K. (2021). Characterizing abhorrent, misinformative, and mistargeted content on YouTube. arXiv . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.09819

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change . Springer Science & Business Media.

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22 (5), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491

Sangalang, A., Ophir, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2019). The potential for narrative correctives to combat misinformation. Journal of Communication, 69 (3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz014

Schulzke, M. (2014). Simulating philosophy: Interpreting video games as executable thought experiments. Philosophy & Technology, 27 (2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0102-2

Shane, T. (2020, June 30). The psychology of misinformation: Why we’re vulnerable. First Draft. https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/the-psychology-of-misinformation-why-were-vulnerable/

Sierra Rativa, A., Postma, M., & Van Zaanen, M. (2020). The influence of game character appearance on empathy and immersion: Virtual non-robotic versus robotic animals. Simulation & Gaming, 51 (5), 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120926694

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (1996). How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73 (4), 974–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909607300415

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12 (2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x

Slater, M. D., Rouner, D., & Long, M. (2006). Television dramas and support for controversial public policies: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Communication, 56 (2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00017.x

Tang, L., Fujimoto, K., Amith, M. T., Cunningham, R., Costantini, R. A., York, F., Xiong, G., Boom, J. A., & Tao, C. (2021). “Down the rabbit hole” of vaccine misinformation on YouTube: Network exposure study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23 (1), e23262. https://doi.org/10.2196/23262

van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., Cook, J., Leiserowitz, A., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358 (6367), 1141–1142. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar4533

Warner, E. L., Basen-Engquist, K. M., Badger, T. A., Crane, T. E., & Raber-Ramsey, M. (2022). The online cancer nutrition misinformation: A framework of behavior change based on exposure to cancer nutrition misinformation. Cancer, 128 (13), 2540–2548. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34218

White, A. (2022). Overcoming ‘confirmation bias’ and the persistence of conspiratorial types of thinking. Continuum, 36 (3), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2021.1992352

Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40 (2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724988843000168

Yin, M., & Xiao, R. (2022). How should I respond to “Good morning?”: Understanding choice in narrative-rich games. Designing Interactive Systems Conference , 726–744. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533459

This work was supported by the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

This work did not involve human subjects, and therefore did not require approval by an institutional review board.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

Replication data is not available for this study.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the rest of the Loki’s Loop team for inspiring this work. The authors also thank Kate Starbird for her helpful feedback on the first iteration of this project.

Representation of Learning Outcomes Stipulated by the Intended Curriculum in Four Series of Chemistry Textbooks: Based on Legitimation Code Theory

• Published: 23 September 2024

Cite this article

• Bing Wei   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5591-8025 1 ,
• Zhangyu Zhan 1 ,
• Zhimeng Jiang 1 &
• Linwei Yu 1  

43 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Intellectual demands of learning outcomes in the intended curriculum have always been a concern across the field of science education. In particular, the representation of those learning outcomes stipulated by the intended curriculum in science textbooks has become a big issue for both science curriculum studies and science teaching practice. To address this issue, the concepts of semantic gravity (SG) and semantic density (SD), as part of the dimension of Semantics from Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), were employed in this study with the purpose of examining the degrees of abstraction and complexity of chemical knowledge under the topic “common substances” in four series of chemistry textbooks, which were compiled in compliance with the national chemistry curriculum of the compulsory education (Grades 1–9) in China. Based on the principles of LCT (Semantics), a new scheme for differentiating the strengths of SG and SD was developed in the current study to analyze the representation of 34 knowledge points in the four series of chemistry textbooks. Results show that these knowledge points are embodied with less complexity and avoid more abstraction in the four series of chemistry textbooks. Specifically, it was found that the overwhelming majority of the knowledge points are represented with strong semantic gravity and weak semantic density. Uniqueness was also identified with individual series of chemistry textbooks. The implications of the results of this study are discussed for the effective representation of science (chemistry) knowledge in textbooks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

(Adapted from Maton, 2016 , p.16)

Similar content being viewed by others

How Complex or Abstract Are Science Learning Outcomes? A Novel Coding Scheme Based on Semantic Density and Gravity

Examining the Changes in Representations of Nature of Science in Chinese Senior High School Chemistry Textbooks

Analysis of high school chemistry textbooks used in iran for representations of nature of science, data availability.

The data and materials used and analyzed for this article are textbooks that are available in the market.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A. A., & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54 (1), 82–120.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised). Rowman and Littlefield.

Google Scholar  

Bi, H., & Lu, W. (2022). Chemistry: Textbook for the compulsory education . Shandong Education Press.

Chen, B & Wei, B. (2015). Examining chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: In the view of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16 , 260–272.

Cranwell, P. B., & Whiteside, K. L. (2020). Investigation into the semantic density and semantic gravity wave profile of teachers when discussing electrophilic aromatic substitution (SEAr). Journal of Chemical Education, 97 (10), 3540–3550.

Dankenbring, C.A., Guzey, S.S. & Bryan, L.A. (2024). Legitimation code theory as an analytical framework for integrated STEM curriculum and its enactment. Research in Science Education, 54 (1), 49–64.

DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (6), 567–591.

Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks: Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 3–15). Springer, Netherlands.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Elmas, R., Rusek, M., Lindell, A., Nieminen, P., Kasapoğlu, K., & Bílek, M. (2020). The intellectual demands of the intended chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey: A comparative analysis based on the revised Bloom”s taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21 (3), 839–851.

Georgiou, H., Maton, K., & Sharma, M. (2014). Recovering knowledge for science education research: Exploring the “Icarus Effect” in student work. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 14 (3), 252–268.

Hadar, L. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn: Mathematics textbooks and students’ achievements. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55 , 153–166.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions . Santa Monica, CA: Center on Education Policy, RAND.

Jiang, L. (Ed.). (2022). Chemistry: textbook for the compulsory education . Guangzhou: Guangdong Education Press.

Kelly-Laubscher, R. F., & Luckett, K. (2016). Differences in curriculum structure between high school and university biology: The implications for epistemological access. Journal of Biological Education, 50 (4), 425–441.

Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). East-Asian primary science curricula: An overview using revised Bloom”s Taxonomy . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom”s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37 , 2193–2213.

Lee, Y.-J., & Tan, J. (Eds.). (2018). Primary science education in East Asia: A critical comparison of systems and strategies . Springer.

Lee, Y. J., & Wan, D. (2022). How complex or abstract are science learning outcomes? A novel coding scheme based on semantic density and gravity. Research in Science Education, 52 (2), 493–509.

Macnaught, L., Maton, K., Martin, J. R., & Matruglio, E. (2013). Jointly constructing semantic waves: Implications for teacher training. Linguistics and Education, 24 (1), 50–63.

Maton, K. (2009). Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30 (1), 43–57.

Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24 (1), 8–22.

Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers. Towards a realist sociology of education . Routledge.

Maton, K. (2016). Legitimation Code Theory: Building knowledge about knowledge-building. In K. Maton, S. Hood, & S. Shay (Eds.), Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 1–24). London.

Maton, K. (2020). Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. In J. R. Martin, K. Maton, & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic Functional Linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 59–86). Routledge.

Matruglio, E. (2022). Legitimation Code Theory. In: F. Brisard, S. D’hondt, P. Gras & M. Vandenbroucke (Eds.),  Handbook of Pragmatics . 25th Annual Installment , 23–45. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Matruglio, E., Maton, K., & Martin, J. R. (2013). Time travel: The role of temporality in enabling semantic waves in secondary school teaching. Linguistics and Education, 24 (1), 38–49.

MoE (Ministry of Education of China). (2022). The c hemistry curriculum standards of the compulsory education (the 2022 version). Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press. (in Chinese)

Nwafor, C. E., Abonyi, O. S., Onyema, E. M., Oka, O. O., & Igba, E. C. (2022). Content coverage and readability of science textbooks in use in Nigerian secondary schools. Journal of Education and Practice, 13 (7), 43–52.

Rootman-le Grange, I., & Blackie, M. A. (2018). Assessing assessment: In pursuit of meaningful learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19 (2), 484–490.

Rusek, M., & Vojíř, K. (2019). Analysis of text difficulty in lower-secondary chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20 (1), 85–94.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001).  Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. The Jossey-Bass Education Series . Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103–1741.

Sievert, H., van den Ham, A. K., Niedermeyer, I., & Heinze, A. (2019). Effects of mathematics textbooks on the development of primary school children’s adaptive expertise in arithmetic. Learning and Individual Differences, 74 , 101716.

Steenkamp, C. M., Rootman-le Grange, I., & Müller-Nedebock, K. K. (2021). Analysing assessments in introductory physics using semantic gravity: Refocussing on core concepts and context-dependence. Teaching in Higher Education, 26 (6), 871–886.

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (17), 137–146.

Thorolfsson, M., Finnbogason, G. E., & Macdonald, A. (2012). A perspective on the intended science curriculum in Iceland and its “transformation” over a period of 50 years. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (17), 2641–2665.

Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks . Kluwer.

Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (11), 1496–1516.

Wang, Z. & Wang, L. (Eds.). (2022). Chemistry: textbook for the compulsory education . Shanghai, China: Shanghai Education Press. (in Chinese)

Wang, J. & Zheng, C. (Eds.). (2022). Chemistry: textbook for the compulsory education . Beijing, China: People Education Press. (in Chinese)

Wei, B. (2019). Reconstructing school chemistry curriculum in the era of core competencies: A case from China. Journal of Chemical Education, 96 , 1359–1366.

Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2019). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curricula in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau: Based on revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 ,1459–1474.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau Room 3027, E33, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China

Bing Wei, Zhangyu Zhan, Zhimeng Jiang & Linwei Yu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Wei .

Ethics declarations

This study involves no human participants. It meets all the ethics requirements of (Details withheld to preserve blind review) at the time the data were collected.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wei, B., Zhan, Z., Jiang, Z. et al. Representation of Learning Outcomes Stipulated by the Intended Curriculum in Four Series of Chemistry Textbooks: Based on Legitimation Code Theory. Res Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10198-x

Download citation

Accepted : 04 September 2024

Published : 23 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10198-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science textbooks
• Intended science curriculum
• Learning outcomes
• Legitimation Code Theory (LCT)
• Semantic density (SD)
• Semantic gravity (SG)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research