IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v89y2020i2d10.1007_s11238-020-09751-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the first-offer dilemma in bargaining and negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • António Osório

    (Universität Rovira i Virgili and CREIP)

Abstract

In bargaining and negotiations, should one make the first offer or wait for the opponent to do so? Practitioners support the idea that moving first in bargaining is a mistake, while researchers find strong evidence that first-movers benefit from an anchoring effect. This paper addresses these issues from a theoretical perspective for the first time in the literature. It is found that first-movers benefit from a strategic advantage, while second-movers benefit from an information advantage. Therefore, the existence of first- and second-mover advantages depends crucially on the relative strength of these two effects. In line with the experimental literature, first-mover advantages are more prevalent, but second-mover advantages appear in very reasonable and realistic bargaining situations. Among other results, it is found that second-mover advantages require the existence of high-types (patient individuals) and differences in individuals’ preferences. The results also suggest a systematic first-mover advantage in contexts of great ambiguity, in which the anchoring effect of the first offer becomes the driving force.

Suggested Citation

  • António Osório, 2020. "On the first-offer dilemma in bargaining and negotiations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 179-202, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09751-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09751-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09751-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-020-09751-7?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-1172, September.
    3. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475.
    4. Ritov, Ilana, 1996. "Anchoring in Simulated Competitive Market Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 16-25, July.
    5. Ausubel, Lawrence M. & Cramton, Peter & Deneckere, Raymond J., 2002. "Bargaining with incomplete information," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 50, pages 1897-1945, Elsevier.
    6. Marvin B. Lieberman & David B. Montgomery, 1988. "First‐mover advantages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 41-58, June.
    7. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "The Effects of Anchor Points and Reference Points on Negotiation Process and Outcome," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 85-94, July.
    8. Kennan, John & Wilson, Robert, 1993. "Bargaining with Private Information," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 45-104, March.
    9. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    10. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    11. Journal of Economics Library, 2015. "New Economics Books," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 380-426, December.
    12. Van Poucke, Dirk & Buelens, Marc, 2002. "Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: Contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-76, February.
    13. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    14. Joel Sobel & Ichiro Takahashi, 1983. "A Multistage Model of Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(3), pages 411-426.
    15. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Infinite-Horizon Models of Bargaining with One-Sided Incomplete Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1098, David K. Levine.
    16. Journal of Economics Library, 2015. "New Economics Books," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 214-284, September.
    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. Colin F. Camerer & Gideon Nave & Alec Smith, 2019. "Dynamic Unstructured Bargaining with Private Information: Theory, Experiment, and Outcome Prediction via Machine Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1867-1890, April.
    2. Peter C. Cramton, 1992. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining with Two-Sided Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(1), pages 205-225.
    3. Eso, Peter & Wallace, Chris, 2016. "Persuasion and Pricing : Dynamic Trading with Hard Evidence," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 24, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    4. Attila Ambrus & Eric Chaney & Igor Salitskiy, 2011. "Pirates of the Mediterranean: An Empirical Investigation of Bargaining with Transaction Costs," Working Papers 11-24, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    5. Yao, Zhiyong, 2012. "Bargaining over incentive contracts," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 98-106.
    6. Bradley J Larsen, 2021. "The Efficiency of Real-World Bargaining: Evidence from Wholesale Used-Auto Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(2), pages 851-882.
    7. Merlo, Antonio & Ortalo-Magne, Francois, 2004. "Bargaining over residential real estate: evidence from England," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 192-216, September.
    8. Daughety, Andrew F. & Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1994. "Settlement negotiations with two-sided asymmetric information: Model duality, information distribution, and efficiency," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 283-298, September.
    9. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    10. Christopher Tyson, 2010. "Dominance solvability of dynamic bargaining games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(3), pages 457-477, June.
    11. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    12. Devanur, Nikhil R. & Peres, Yuval & Sivan, Balasubramanian, 2019. "Perfect Bayesian Equilibria in repeated sales," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 570-588.
    13. Jean-Pierre P. Langlois & Catherine C. Langlois, 2004. "Holding Out for Concession: The Quest for Gain in the Negotiation of International Agreements," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 261-293, April.
    14. Peter C. Cramton, 1984. "Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Infinite-Horizon Model with Two-Sided Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(4), pages 579-593.
    15. Stefan Kohler, 2012. "Incomplete Information about Social Preferences Explains Equal Division and Delay in Bargaining," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Thomas, Charles J., 2018. "An alternating-offers model of multilateral negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 269-293.
    17. Ambrus, Attila & Chaney, Eric & Salitskiy, Igor, 2015. "Váltságdíjtárgyalások - tranzakciós költségek melletti alkudozás empirikus vizsgálata [Negotiating for ransom: an empirical investigation of bargaining with transaction costs]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 997-1029.
    18. Cai, Hongbin, 2000. "Bargaining on Behalf of a Constituency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 234-273, June.
    19. Mak, Vincent & Rapoport, Amnon & Gisches, Eyran J., 2012. "Competitive dynamic pricing with alternating offers: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 250-264.
    20. Meghan Busse & Florian Zettelmeyer & Jorge Silva-Risso, 2004. "$1000 Cash Back: Asymmetric Information in Auto Manufaturer Promotions," NBER Working Papers 10887, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09751-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.