APPLICATION OF GAME THEORY IN PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING FOR PERSONAL DECISION-MAKING

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32782/3041-2005/2026-1.14

Keywords:

rational choice theory, concept of bounded rationality, motivation, expectations, trust, decision making

Abstract

The article explores the theoretical and methodological foundations of integrating game theory into psychological counseling as a tool for supporting the process of personal decision-making. The origins of the use of game modeling in psychology are associated with three interrelated stages: the formation of the classical theory of rational choice (J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern), the development of concepts of bounded rationality and cognitive biases (H. Simon, D. Kahneman, A. Tversky), and the transition to a psychological understanding of strategic interaction in an interpersonal context. The concept of “psychological game” in E. Berne’s transactional analysis is highlighted as a prerequisite for the use of game models in counseling practice. It is shown that motivation, expectations and trust are key internal variables of the “game” in the client’s decision-making process. The main directions of using game theory in modern psychology are analyzed – from experimental (trust games, ultimatum games, social dilemmas) to cognitive and clinical, where game scenarios help to model situations of choice, conflict or cooperation. Special attention is paid to modern research approaches, in particular the use of neuropsychological methods to study the brain mechanisms of strategic thinking, the development of behavioral game theory, as well as the spread of computer simulations in the training of consultants and psychological practice. The main scientific gaps are identified: the lack of adapted models for individual decisionmaking, insufficient integration of mathematical formalism and phenomenological methods, as well as the limited empirical research on the effectiveness of game strategies in real consulting conditions. The need to develop hybrid models that combine the accuracy of game theory with the depth of psychological analysis is emphasized.

References

Мосол Н.О. Міжособистісна довіра як предмет психологічного аналізу. Габітус. 2024. Вип. 59. C. 101–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5208. 2024.59.16.

Schwarz G., Christensen T., Zhu X. Bounded Rationality, Satisficing, Artificial Intelligence, and Public Administration. Public Administration Review. 2022. Vol. 82. № 5. P. 902–904. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13540 (дата звернення: 04.11.2025).

Giarlotta A., Petralia A. Simon’s bounded rationality. Decisions in Economics and Financе. 2024. Vol. 47. Р. 327–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-024-00436-2.

Sood G., Gelman A., Robert C. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. CHANCE. 2024. Vol. 37. № 3. Р. 70–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2024.2416879.

Müller J., Schwieren C. Big Five personality factors in the Trust Game. Journal of Business Economics. 2020. Vol. 90. P. 37–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00928-3.

López R., Calvo J.L., de la Torre I. Behavioural and psychological game theory: a systematic review. Retos Revista de Ciencias de la Administración y Economía. 2022. Vol. 12. № 24. Р. 296–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17163/ret.n24.2022.07.

Tang Y., Gong Z. Trust game, survey trust, are they correlated? Evidence from China. Current Psychology. 2024. Vol. 43. Р. 2253–2263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04448-w.

Хайрулін О.М. Ігрове моделювання життєдіяльності людини як предмет психологічного дослідження. Габітус. 2024. Вип. 57. С. 73–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5208.2024.57.11.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Game Theory. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/ (дата звернення: 04.11.2025).

Capraro V., Di Paolo R., Perc M., Pizziol V. Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence. 2024. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2403.08944. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08944 (дата звернення: 04.11.2025).

Wright A.G.C., Pincus A.L., Hopwood C.J. Contemporary integrative interpersonal theory: Integrating structure, dynamics, temporal scale, and levels of analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science. 2023. Vol. 132. № 3. Р. 263–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000741.

Mapping the Neural Basis of Neuroeconomics with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative Literature Review / Mallio C.A. et al. Brain Sciences. 2024. Vol. 14. № 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14050511.

Healy P.J., Park H. Model selection accuracy in behavioral game theory: A simulation. European Economic Review. 2023. Vol. 152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104362.

De Fano A., Fiedler P., Zappasodi F., Bertollo M., Comani S. A systematic scoping review of EEG-hyperscanning research. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2025. Vol. 20. № 1. Artilce nsaf050. URL: https://academic.oup.com/scan/article-pdf/20/1/nsaf050/63127898/nsaf050.pdf (дата звернення: 04.11.2025).

Gao J., Geng Y., Jiang X., Li J., Yan Y. Social dilemma for 30 years: Progress, framework, and future based on CiteSpace analysis. Medicine. 2024. Vol. 103. № 52. Artilce e41138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000041138.

Facchino A.P., Marchetti D., Colasanti M., Fontanesi L., Verrocchio M.С. The use of serious games for psychological education and training: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education. Vol. 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1511729.

Published

2026-03-12

Issue

Section

Статті