IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v86y2021ics016748702100043x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reference dependent prices in bargaining: An experimental examination of precise first offers

Author

Listed:
  • Kimbrough, Erik O.
  • Porter, David
  • Schneider, Mark

Abstract

Evidence from psychology and marketing suggests that those who make a “precise” first offer in bargaining get a better deal than those who make a “round” first offer. We report on a series of experiments designed to test for and improve our understanding of the “precise first offer” (PFO) effect in bargaining and whether it likely reflects rational optimizing or equilibrium behavior. Our experiment varies whether decisions are incentivized and whether the PFO effect can emerge as an equilibrium of a cheap-talk signaling game. We find evidence of a PFO effect when subjects read a vignette and make unincentivized individual decisions. When monetary incentives are added to the vignette, we still find the PFO effect, but it is not robust. In a bilateral bargaining situation with a cheap-talk equilibrium, we can not find the PFO effect, which is inconsistent with the equilibrium predictions. Moreover, the PFO effect reemerges in a setting in which initial offers are generated by a random device and thus provides a strong refutation of the signaling model. Our evidence suggests that optimizing and equilibrium accounts of the PFO effect are inadequate. Understanding initial offers as reference points, which subtly change perceptions about the kinds of acceptable counteroffers, provides a plausible account of a new finding on which prior explanations are silent: precise offers induce more precise counteroffers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimbrough, Erik O. & Porter, David & Schneider, Mark, 2021. "Reference dependent prices in bargaining: An experimental examination of precise first offers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:86:y:2021:i:c:s016748702100043x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2021.102406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748702100043X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2021.102406?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Backus & Thomas Blake & Steven Tadelis, 2019. "On the Empirical Content of Cheap-Talk Signaling: An Application to Bargaining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1599-1628.
    2. Lee, Alice J. & Loschelder, David D. & Schweinsberg, Martin & Mason, Malia F. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2018. "Too precise to pursue: How precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiations and markets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 87-100.
    3. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    4. Margarita Leib & Nils C. Köbis & Marc Francke & Shaul Shalvi & Marieke Roskes, 2021. "Precision in a Seller’s Market: Round Asking Prices Lead to Higher Counteroffers and Selling Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 1048-1055, February.
    5. Eric Anderson & Duncan Simester, 2003. "Effects of $9 Price Endings on Retail Sales: Evidence from Field Experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 93-110, March.
    6. Meghan R. Busse & Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Jorge Silva-Risso & Justin R. Sydnor, 2013. "Estimating the Effect of Salience in Wholesale and Retail Car Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 575-579, May.
    7. Stephen L. Ross & Tingyu Zhou, 2020. "Documenting Loss Aversion Using Evidence of Round Number Bias," Working Papers 2020-079, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    8. Eric J. Allen & Patricia M. Dechow & Devin G. Pope & George Wu, 2017. "Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from Marathon Runners," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1657-1672, June.
    9. Manoj Thomas & Daniel H. Simon & Vrinda Kadiyali, 2010. "The Price Precision Effect: Evidence from Laboratory and Market Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 175-190, 01-02.
    10. Pope, Devin G. & Pope, Jaren C. & Sydnor, Justin R., 2015. "Focal points and bargaining in housing markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 89-107.
    11. Basu, Kaushik, 1997. "Why are so many goods priced to end in nine? And why this practice hurts the producers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 41-44, January.
    12. Dengfeng Yan & Jorge Pena-Marin, 2017. "Round Off the Bargaining: The Effects of Offer Roundness on Willingness to Accept," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(2), pages 381-395.
    13. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    14. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    15. Fraser-Mackenzie, P. & Sung, M. & Johnson, J.E.V., 2015. "The prospect of a perfect ending: Loss aversion and the round-number bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 67-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chui, Peter M.W. & Fong, Lawrence Hoc Nang & Ren, Jinjuan & Tam, Lewis H.K., 2022. "Anchoring effects in repeated auctions of homogeneous objects: Evidence from Macao," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Ciacci, Riccardo & Ramírez, Ericka G. Rascón, 2022. "Anchors matter: Eliciting maternal expectations on educational outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Yigit Oezcelik & Michel Tolksdorf, 2023. "Non-numerical and social anchoring in consumer-generated ratings," Working Papers 202319, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    4. Petrowsky, Hannes M. & Schweinsberg, Martin & Seitz, Lennart & Funk, Burkhardt & Loschelder, David D., 2023. "Deal or no deal? How round vs precise percentage offers and price-ending mimicry affect impasse risk in over 25 million eBay negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Fanning, Jack, 2022. "Fairness and the Coase conjecture," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Fatas, Enrique & Restrepo-Plaza, Lina, 2022. "When losses can be a gain. A large lab-in-the-field experiment on reference dependent forgiveness in Colombia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cardella, Eric & Seiler, Michael J., 2016. "The effect of listing price strategy on real estate negotiations: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-90.
    2. Zhenling Jiang, 2022. "An Empirical Bargaining Model with Left-Digit Bias: A Study on Auto Loan Monthly Payments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 442-465, January.
    3. Meng, Charlotte C., 2023. "The price paid: Heuristic thinking and biased reference points in the housing market," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Pope, Devin G. & Pope, Jaren C. & Sydnor, Justin R., 2015. "Focal points and bargaining in housing markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 89-107.
    5. Reto Foellmi & Stefan Legge & Lukas Schmid, 2016. "Do Professionals Get It Right? Limited Attention and Risk‐taking Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(592), pages 724-755, May.
    6. Stephen L. Ross & Tingyu Zhou, 2020. "Documenting Loss Aversion Using Evidence of Round Number Bias," Working Papers 2020-079, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    7. Petrowsky, Hannes M. & Schweinsberg, Martin & Seitz, Lennart & Funk, Burkhardt & Loschelder, David D., 2023. "Deal or no deal? How round vs precise percentage offers and price-ending mimicry affect impasse risk in over 25 million eBay negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Florian Englmaier & Andreas Roider & Lars Schlereth & Steffen Sebastian, 2023. "Round-Number Effects in Real Estate Prices: Evidence from Germany," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 446, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    9. Joshua Goodman & Oded Gurantz & Jonathan Smith, 2020. "Take Two! SAT Retaking and College Enrollment Gaps," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 115-158, May.
    10. Snir, Avichai & (Allan) Chen, Haipeng & Levy, Daniel, 2022. "Zero-ending prices, cognitive convenience, and price rigidity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 519-542.
    11. Mohamed Didi Alaoui, 2020. "L’effet d’adéquation entre la forme de présentation du prix et de la distance temporelle sur les réponses du consommateur : une approche par la théorie des niveaux de représentation," Post-Print hal-02870097, HAL.
    12. Garz, Marcel, 2018. "Effects of unemployment news on economic perceptions – Evidence from German Federal States," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 172-190.
    13. Ozcan, Timucin & Hair, Michael & Gunasti, Kunter, 2024. "How reaching numerical roundness on subgoals affects the completion of superordinate goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    14. Brady, Garrett L. & Inesi, M. Ena & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2021. "The power of lost alternatives in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 59-80.
    15. Eric J. Allen & Patricia M. Dechow & Devin G. Pope & George Wu, 2017. "Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from Marathon Runners," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1657-1672, June.
    16. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    17. Fraser-Mackenzie, P. & Sung, M. & Johnson, J.E.V., 2015. "The prospect of a perfect ending: Loss aversion and the round-number bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 67-80.
    18. Margarita Leib & Nils C. Köbis & Marc Francke & Shaul Shalvi & Marieke Roskes, 2021. "Precision in a Seller’s Market: Round Asking Prices Lead to Higher Counteroffers and Selling Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 1048-1055, February.
    19. Converse, Benjamin A. & Dennis, Patrick J., 2018. "The role of “Prominent Numbers” in open numerical judgment: Strained decision makers choose from a limited set of accessible numbers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 94-107.
    20. Cross, Jeffrey & Zhang, Guangli, 2024. "Focal points for giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; Precise first offers; Reference points;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:86:y:2021:i:c:s016748702100043x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.