On competing rewards standards--an experimental study of ultimatum bargaining
Author
Abstract
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
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:
- Gneezy, U. & Güth, W., 1997. "On Competing Rewards Standards -An Experimental Study of Ultimatum Bargaining-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,98, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
- Gneezy, U. & Güth, W., 1998. "On competing rewards standards : An experimental study of ultimatum bargaining," Other publications TiSEM f680cc9f-9661-4b8c-9b28-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Gneezy, U. & Güth, W., 1998. "On competing rewards standards : An experimental study of ultimatum bargaining," Discussion Paper 1998-26, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Neo, Wei Siong & Yu, Michael & Weber, Roberto A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2013. "The effects of time delay in reciprocity games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 20-35.
- Andrea Gallice, 2006.
"Predicting one Shot Play in 2x2 Games Using Beliefs Based on Minimax Regret,"
Working Papers
2006.31, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Gallice, Andrea, 2006. "Predicting one Shot Play in 2x2 Games Using Beliefs Based on Minimax Regret," Economic Theory and Applications Working Papers 12182, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
- Krawczyk, Michal & Le Lec, Fabrice, 2015.
"Can we neutralize social preference in experimental games?,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 340-355.
- Michal Krawczyk & Fabrice Le Lec, 2015. "Can we neutralize social preference in experimental games?," Post-Print hal-01297361, HAL.
- Michal Krawczyk & Fabrice Le Lec, 2015. "Can we neutralize social preference in experimental games?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01297361, HAL.
- Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin, 2016.
"A Theory of Experiments: Invariance of Equilibrium to the Strategy Method of Elicitation and Implications for Social Preferences,"
TSE Working Papers
16-724, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Feb 2020.
- Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin, 2016. "A Theory of Experiments: Invariance of Equilibrium to the Strategy Method of Elicitation and Implications for Social Preferences," IAST Working Papers 16-54, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Feb 2020.
- Pfaff, Alexander & Vélez, Maria Alejandra, 2012. "Efficiency and equity in negotiated resource transfers: Contributions and limitations of trust with limited contracts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 55-63.
- Fischer, Christian & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019.
"Collusion and bargaining in asymmetric Cournot duopoly—An experiment,"
European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 360-379.
- Fischer, Christian & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2018. "Collusion and bargaining in asymmetric Cournot duopoly: An experiment," DICE Discussion Papers 283, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), revised 2018.
- Güth, W. & Kroger, S. & Maug, E., 2003. "You May Have to Do it Again, Rocky! An Experimental Analysis of Bargaining with Risky Joint Profits," Discussion Paper 2003-117, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Gallice, Andrea, 2007. "Best Responding to What? A Behavioral Approach to One Shot Play in 2x2 Games," Discussion Papers in Economics 1365, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Güth, W. & Kroger, S. & Maug, E., 2003. "You May Have to Do it Again, Rocky! An Experimental Analysis of Bargaining with Risky Joint Profits," Other publications TiSEM 22e50aad-c729-498d-9760-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
More about this item
JEL classification:
- C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
- C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
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:soceco:v:31:y:2003:i:6:p:599-607. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/inca/620175 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.