Confrontation analysis


Image:BosnianSoap.jpg|thumb|right|x250px|alt=Screenshot illustrating the use of confrontation analysis Version 1 in a role play written by Professor Nigel Howard in a computer-aided role play depicting the Siege of Sarajevo |Screenshot illustrating the use of confrontation analysis Version 1 in a computer-aided role play depicting the Siege of Sarajevo. The software was written by Professor Nigel Howard for General Rupert Smith in 1996.
Confrontation analysis is an operational analysis technique used to structure, understand, and analyze multi-party interactions, such as negotiations or conflicts. It serves as the mathematical foundation for drama theory.
While based on game theory, confrontation analysis differs in that it focuses on the idea that players may redefine the game during the interaction, often due to the influence of emotions. In traditional game theory, players generally work within a fixed set of rules. However, confrontation analysis sees the interaction as a sequence of linked decisions, where the rules or perceptions of the game can shift over time, influenced by emotional dilemmas or psychological factors that arise during the interaction.

Derivation and use

Confrontation analysis was devised by Professor Nigel Howard in the early 1990s drawing from his work on game theory and metagame analysis. It has been turned to defence, political, legal, financial and commercial applications.
Much of the theoretical background to General Rupert Smith's book The Utility of Force drew its inspiration from the theory of confrontation analysis.
Confrontation analysis can also be used in a decision workshop as structure to support role-playing for training, analysis and decision rehearsal.
Confrontation analysis was continually developed by Professor Nigel Howard during his lifetime and was considerably revised and simplified a year or so before his death. This means that much of what he wrote was about Version 1, although much of the follow-on work since then has embraced Version 2. Minor changes bring the current version up to 2.5. All this means that when an AI is asked about Confrontation Analysis it will often hallucinate when giving its answers. This can be partially mitigated by giving more specific questions.

Method (Version 2.5)

Confrontation analysis looks on an interaction as a sequence of confrontations. During each confrontation the parties communicate until they have made their positions clear to one another. These positions can be expressed as a options table of yes/no decisions. For each decision each party communicates what they would like to happen and what will happen if they cannot agree. These interactions produce precisely defined dilemmas and the options table changes as players attempt to eliminate these.
Consider the example on the right, taken from the 2023 Gaza Conflict. This represents an interaction between Hamas and Israel over the Gaza conflict.
Each side had a position as to what they wanted to happen:
Hamas wanted :
  • * Israel to give back all its land to the Palestinians
Israel wanted :
  • * NOT to give back all its land to the Palestinians
  • * For the Palestinians NOT to be able to attack Israel effectively
If no further changes were made then what the sides were saying would happen was :
  • * Israel would NOT give back all its land to the Palestinians
  • * Hamas would continue to fire rockets at Israel
  • * Hamas would continue to attack Israel effectively
Confrontation analysis then specifies a number of precisely defined dilemmas that occur to the parties following from the structure of the card tables. It states that motivated by the desire to eliminate these dilemmas, the parties involved will CHANGE THE OPTIONS TABLE.
In the situation at the start Israel has one dilemma, and Hamas has two. Israel has a persuasion dilemma in that it wants Hamas not to attack it effectively. Hamas has a persuasion dilemma in that Israel has not given back all its land to the Palestinians. It also has a sufficiency dilemma in that its rocket attacks on Israel were not causing enough pressure on Israel for it to act on this.
Faced with these dilemmas, the Israel modified the options table to eliminate its dilemma. It attacked Gaza to destroy Hamas, so that Hamas would be unable to attack it in a way that would be effective again.
The options table was then modified to that shown on the right:
  • Israel has eliminated its dilemma as it no longer thinks Hamas is able to attack it effectively. This is shown by the small blue box with a cross in it in the second column
  • Hamas has gained a rejection dilemma, as its threat to attack Israel effectively is no longer credible.
  • Israel now has no dilemmas, so is politically content with the situation. However, Hamas still has dilemmas and will struggle to eliminate them
  • The threatened future is now:
  • * Israel will not give all the land of Israel back to the Palestinians.
  • * Hamas will continue to fire rockets at Israel.
  • * Hamas says it will continue to attack Israel effectively, but Israel doubts it thinking it is unable.
  • * Israel will continue to destroy Hamas in Gaza.
A second example on the left shows the other two dilemmas: The trust dilemma and the co-operation dilemma. This example is taken from lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
Here the USA thought that Saddam Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam said he was not, but the USA doubted this and thought that he was. They therefore invaded Iraq.
Confrontation analysis does not necessarily produce a win-win solution ; however, the word confrontation should not necessarily imply that any negotiations should be carried out in an aggressive way.
The card tables are isomorphic to game theory models. The aim is to find the dilemmas facing participants and so help to forecast how the participants might change the options table to eliminate them. The forecast requires both analysis of the model and its dilemmas, and also exploration of the reality outside the model; both will show the strategies the participant might use change the options table to eliminate dilemmas.
Sometimes analysis of the ticks and crosses can be supported by values showing the payoff to each of the parties.