IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mhr/jinste/urnsici0932-4569(200303)1591_171rfclfb_2.0.tx_2-d.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reasons for Conflict: Lessons from Bargaining Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Armin Falk
  • Ernst Fehr
  • Urs Fischbacher

Abstract

In this paper we experimentally study the effects of fairness, spite, and reputation formation on conflict. We show that fairness preferences are a potential source of conflict and that intentions play an important role in the perception of fairness. Further, we show that feelings of spite may affect the occurrence of conflict. Finally, we study reputation formation as a possible source of conflict. We show that people invest in a reputation of being a tough bargainer. This does not automatically increase conflict, however. The reason is that through reputation, information about one's opponent is much better than in anonymous bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "Reasons for Conflict: Lessons from Bargaining Experiments," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 159(1), pages 171-187, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(200303)159:1_171:rfclfb_2.0.tx_2-d
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/artikel/reasons-for-conflict-lessons-from-bargaining-experiments-1016280932456032974925
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access is included for subscribers to the printed version.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Snir, Avichai, 2014. "When choosing to be almost certain of winning can be better than choosing to win with certainty," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 135-146.
    2. Wolfgang Buchholz & Wolfgang Peters, 2005. "A Rawlsian Approach to International Cooperation," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 25-44, February.
    3. Hubert Kempf, 2021. "Fiscal Federalism in a Monetary Union: The No-Cooperation Pitfall," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 109-151, February.
    4. Cox, Caleb A., 2013. "Inequity aversion and advantage seeking with asymmetric competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 121-136.
    5. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Pedro Moreira, 2015. "The Perception of Economic Value Limits: A Study on the Ultimatum Game Decision Patterns," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2503337, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    7. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    8. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Ira N Gang & Myeong-Su Yun, 2009. "Rationality as a Barrier to Peace: Micro-evidence from Kosovo," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 51(2), pages 242-264, June.
    9. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2018. "How to Protect Entitlements: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 525-553.
    10. Gulyás, Attila, 2007. "A méltányosságelmélet alapjai. Modellek és nézőpontok [The foundations of quity theory. Models and viewpoints]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 167-183.
    11. Waichman, Israel & Requate, Till & Korzhenevych, Artem, 2013. "Equal split in the informal market for group train travel," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 327-329.
    12. Michael D. Carr & Phil Mellizo, 2013. "Entitlement in a Real Effort Ultimatum Game," Working Papers 2013_01, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    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:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(200303)159:1_171:rfclfb_2.0.tx_2-d. 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: Thomas Wolpert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/jite .

    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.