全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
Games  2012 

Incomplete Information about Social Preferences Explains Equal Division and Delay in Bargaining

DOI: 10.3390/g3030119

Keywords: alternating-offer bargaining, asymmetric information, envy, fairness, inequality aversion, uncertainty

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Two deviations of alternating-offer bargaining behavior from economic theory are observed together, yet have been studied separately. Players who could secure themselves a large surplus share if bargainers were purely self-interested incompletely exploit their advantage. Delay in agreement occurs even if all experimentally controlled information is common knowledge. This paper rationalizes both regularities coherently by modeling heterogeneous social preferences, either self-interest or envy, of one bargaining party as private information in a three period game of bargaining and preference screening and signaling.

References

[1]  St?hl, I. Bargaining Theory; Stockholm School of Economics: Stockholm, Sweden, 1972.
[2]  Rubinstein, A. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 1982, 50, 97–109, doi:10.2307/1912531.
[3]  Bolton, G.E. A comparative model of bargaining: Theory and evidence. Am. Econ. Rev. 1991, 81, 1096–1136.
[4]  Ochs, J.; Roth, A.E. An experimental study of sequential bargaining. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 79, 355–384.
[5]  Weg, E.; Rapoport, A.; Felsenthal, D.S. Two-person bargaining behavior in fixed discounting factors games with infinite horizon. Games Econ. Behav. 1990, 2, 76–95, doi:10.1016/0899-8256(90)90015-M.
[6]  Camerer, C.F. Behavioral Game Theory. Experiments in Strategic Interaction (The Roundtable Series in Behavioral Economics); Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2003.
[7]  Cooper, D.J.; Kagel, J.H. Other Regarding Preferences: A Selective Survey of Experimental Results. In Handbook of Experimental Economics; Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA; Volume 2.
[8]  Smith, R. Envy: Theory and Research; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
[9]  Chatterjee, K.; Samuelson, L. Bargaining with two-sided incomplete information: An infinite horizon model with alternating offers. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1987, 54, 175–192, doi:10.2307/2297510.
[10]  Chatterjee, K.; Samuelson, L. Bargaining under two-sided incomplete information: The unrestricted offers case. Oper. Res. 1988, 36, 605–618, doi:10.1287/opre.36.4.605.
[11]  Cramton, P.C. Strategic delay in bargaining with two-sided uncertainty. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1992, 59, 205–225, doi:10.2307/2297934.
[12]  Grossman, S.J.; Perry, M. Sequential bargaining under asymmetric information. J. Econ. Theory 1986, 39, 120–154, doi:10.1016/0022-0531(86)90023-2.
[13]  Gul, F.; Sonnenschein, H. On delay in bargaining with one-sided uncertainty. Econometrica 1988, 56, 601–611, doi:10.2307/1911702.
[14]  Rubinstein, A. A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica 1985, 53, 1151–1172, doi:10.2307/1911016.
[15]  Cramton, P.C. Bargaining with incomplete information: An infinite-horizon model with two-sided uncertainty. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1984, 51, 579–593, doi:10.2307/2297780.
[16]  Fudenberg, D.; Levine, D.K.; Tirole, J. Infinite-Horizon Models of Margaining with One-SidedIncomplete Information. In Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining; Roth, A.E., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1985; pp. 73–98.
[17]  Sobel, J.; Takahashi, I. A multistage model of bargaining. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1983, 50, 411–426, doi:10.2307/2297673.
[18]  Ausubel, L.M.; Deneckere, R.J. A direct mechanism characterization of sequential bargaining with one-sided incomplete information. J. Econ. Theory 1989, 48, 18–46, doi:10.1016/0022-0531(89)90118-X.
[19]  Ausubel, L.M.; Cramton, P.; Deneckere, R.J. Bargaining with Incomplete Information. In Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications; Aumann, R.J., Hart, S., Eds.; Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 3, pp. 1897–1945.
[20]  Roth, A.E. Bargaining Experiments. In Handbook of Experimental Economics; Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 253–348.
[21]  Rasch, A.; Wambach, A.; Wiener, K. Bargaining and inequity aversion: On the efficiency of the double auction. Econ. Lett. 2012, 114, 178–181, doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.09.027.
[22]  Srivastava, J. The role of inferences in sequential bargaining with one-sided incomplete information: Some experimental evidence. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 85, 166–187, doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2936.
[23]  Von Siemens, F.A. Bargaining under incomplete information, fairness, and the hold-up problem. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 2009, 71, 486–494, doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.007.
[24]  Von Siemens, F.A. Heterogeneous social preferences, screening, and employment contracts. Oxf. Econ. Papers 2010, 63, 499–522, doi:10.1093/oep/gpq028.
[25]  De Bruyn, A.; Bolton, G.E. Estimating the influence of fairness on bargaining behavior. Manag. Sci. 2008, 54, 1774–1791, doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0887.
[26]  Goeree, J.K.; Holt, C.A. Asymmetric inequality aversion and noisy behavior in alternating-offer bargaining games. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2000, 44, 1079–1089, doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(99)00048-3.
[27]  Bolton, G.E.; Ockenfels, A. ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 166–193, doi:10.1257/aer.90.1.166.
[28]  Fehr, E.; Schmidt, K.M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 1999, 114, 817–868, doi:10.1162/003355399556151.
[29]  Kohler, S. Envy can Promote More Equal Division in Alternating-Offer Bargaining. In MPRA Paper 40761; University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2012.
[30]  Kohler, S. Guilt Causes Equal or Unequal Division in Alternating-Offer Bargaining. In MPRA Paper 40760; University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2012.
[31]  Driesen, B.; Perea, A.; Peters, H. Alternating offers bargaining with loss aversion. Math. Soc. Sci. 2011, 64, 103–118.
[32]  Montero, M. Inequity aversion may increase inequity. Econ. J. 2007, 117, C192–C204, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02041.x.
[33]  Kohler, S. Altruism and fairness in experimental decisions. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 2011, 80, 101–109, doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.02.014.
[34]  Tan, J.H.W.; Bolle, F. On the relative strengths of altruism and fairness. Theory Decis. 2006, 60, 35–67, doi:10.1007/s11238-005-4752-0.
[35]  Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 1–263, doi:10.2307/1912343.
[36]  Myerson, R.B. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991.
[37]  Abreu, D.; Gul, F. Bargaining and reputation. Econometrica 2000, 68, 85–117.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413