IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v49y2003i5p583-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Gary E. Bolton

    (Smeal College of Business, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, and Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Kalyan Chatterjee

    (Department of Economics, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Kathleen L. McGinn

    (Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

Complexity of communication is one of the important factors that distinguishes multilateral negotiation from its bilateral cousin. We investigate how the communication configuration affects a three-person coalition negotiation. Restricting who can communicate with whom strongly influences outcomes, and not always in ways that current theory anticipates. Competitive frictions, including a tendency to communicate offers privately, appear to shape much of what we observe. Our results suggest that parties with weaker alternatives would benefit from a more constrained structure, especially if they can be the conduit of communication, while those endowed with stronger alternatives would do well to work within a more public communication structure that promotes competitive bidding.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary E. Bolton & Kalyan Chatterjee & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2003. "How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 583-598, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:5:p:583-598
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.49.5.583.15148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.5.583.15148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.49.5.583.15148?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van Huyck, John & Battalio, Raymond & Mathur, Sondip & Van Huyck, Patsy & Ortmann, Andreas, 1995. "On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Symmetric Bargaining Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 24(2), pages 187-212.
    2. Kalyan Chatterjee & Bhaskar Dutia & Debraj Ray & Kunal Sengupta, 2013. "A Noncooperative Theory of Coalitional Bargaining," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 5, pages 97-111, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Roger B. Myerson, 1977. "Graphs and Cooperation in Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 225-229, August.
    4. Kalyan Chatterjee & Bhaskar Dutta, 2013. "Rubinstein Auctions: On Competition for Bargaining Partners," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 3, pages 51-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Okada, Akira, 1996. "A Noncooperative Coalitional Bargaining Game with Random Proposers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 97-108, September.
    6. J. Keith Murnighan & Alvin E. Roth, 1977. "The Effects of Communication and Information Availability in an Experimental Study of a Three-Person Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(12), pages 1336-1348, August.
    7. Binmore, Ken & Swierzbinski, Joe & Hsu, Steven & Proulx, Chris, 1993. "Focal Points and Bargaining," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(4), pages 381-409.
    8. Borm, P.E.M. & Owen, G. & Tijs, S.H., 1992. "On the position value for communication situations," Other publications TiSEM 5a8473e4-1df7-42df-ad53-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Rankin, Frederick W, 1997. "On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Coordination Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(442), pages 576-596, May.
    10. Valley, Kathleen L. & White, Sally Blount & Neale, Margaret A. & Bazerman, Max H., 1992. "Agents as information brokers: The effects of information disclosure on negotiated outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 220-236, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Roy Chowdhury, Prabal & Sengupta, Kunal, 2012. "Transparency, complementarity and holdout," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 598-612.
    2. Kim, Chulyoung & Kim, Sang-Hyun & Lee, Jinhyuk & Lee, Joosung, 2022. "Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Juan Vidal-Puga, 2004. "Negotiating the membership," Game Theory and Information 0409003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Joosung Lee, 2013. "Bargaining and Buyout," 2013 Papers ple701, Job Market Papers.
    5. María Gómez-Rúa & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2014. "Bargaining and membership," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(2), pages 800-814, July.
    6. Roy Chowdhury, Prabal & Sengupta, Kunal, 2008. "Multi-person Bargaining With Complementarity: Is There Holdout?," MPRA Paper 11517, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alexandre Skoda, 2016. "Convexity of Network Restricted Games Induced by Minimum Partitions," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16019, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Olivier Compte & Philippe Jehiel, 2010. "The Coalitional Nash Bargaining Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1593-1623, September.
    9. Arnold Polanski & Emiliya Lazarova, 2015. "Dynamic multilateral markets," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 815-833, November.
    10. Sridhar Mandyam & Usha Sridhar, 2017. "DON and Shapley Value for Allocation among Cooperating Agents in a Network: Conditions for Equivalence," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 5(2), pages 143-161, December.
    11. Liying Kang & Anna Khmelnitskaya & Erfang Shan & Dolf Talman & Guang Zhang, 2021. "The average tree value for hypergraph games," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 94(3), pages 437-460, December.
    12. Kamijo, Yoshio, 2009. "A linear proportional effort allocation rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 341-353, November.
    13. Montero, M.P., 2002. "Two-Stage Bargaining with Reversible Coalitions : The Case of Apex Games," Other publications TiSEM 7dba0283-bc13-4f2c-8f5e-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Suzuki, T. & Talman, A.J.J., 2011. "Solution Concepts for Cooperative Games with Circular Communication Structure," Discussion Paper 2011-100, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Montero, Maria, 2002. "Non-cooperative bargaining in apex games and the kernel," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 309-321, November.
    16. Debraj Ray & Rajiv Vohra, 2024. "Nash Bargaining with Coalitional Threats," Working Papers 2024-001, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    17. C. Manuel & D. Martín, 2021. "A value for communication situations with players having different bargaining abilities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 161-182, June.
    18. Toshiji Miyakawa, 2009. "Existence and efficiency of a stationary subgame-perfect equilibrium in coalitional bargaining models with nonsuperadditive payoffs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 291-306, May.
    19. Sylvain Béal & Anna Khmelnitskaya & Philippe Solal, 2018. "Two-step values for games with two-level communication structure," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 563-587, February.
    20. Britz, Volker & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Predtetchinski, Arkadi, 2015. "Delay, multiplicity, and non-existence of equilibrium in unanimity bargaining games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 192-202.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:5:p:583-598. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.