IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v19y2022i2d10.1007_s40844-022-00231-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hiding or revealing: their indirect evolution in the Acquiring-a-Company game

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Stefan Napel

    (University of Bayreuth)

Abstract

The Acquiring-a-Company game of Bazerman and Samuelson (J Confl Resolut 27(4):618–634, 1983) is modified by letting the privately informed seller send a numerical value message to the prospective buyer. A population of sellers reveal or hide their private information according to their categorical type rather than by engaging in consequentialistic decision-making. Population shares of the types evolve according to expected profits (fitness). The analysis illustrates how specific institutional and behavioral aspects shape the creation of surplus in the market and possibilities for maintaining a positive share of revealing sellers.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & Stefan Napel, 2022. "Hiding or revealing: their indirect evolution in the Acquiring-a-Company game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 569-585, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:19:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-022-00231-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-022-00231-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-022-00231-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-022-00231-x?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. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1993. "Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(2), pages 171-198.
    2. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    3. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: The Winner's Curse," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 191-202, Winter.
    4. Selten, Reinhard, 1983. "Evolutionary stability in extensive two-person games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 269-363, September.
    5. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2013. "Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2269-2302, November.
    6. D. Di Cagno & A. Galliera & W. Güth & N. Pace & L. Panaccione, 2016. "Make-up and suspicion in bargaining with cheap talk: An experiment controlling for gender and gender constellation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 463-471, 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. Berentsen, Aleksander & McBride, Michael & Rocheteau, Guillaume, 2017. "Limelight on dark markets: Theory and experimental evidence on liquidity and information," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-90.
    2. Casal, Sandro & Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2019. "The role of morals in three-player ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    3. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    4. Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Alexandra K. Zaby, 2017. "Blindfolded vs. Informed Ultimatum Bargaining – A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 18(4), pages 444-467, November.
    5. Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Lying about delegation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 29-40.
    6. Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2016. "Bargaining with incomplete information: Evolutionary stability in finite populations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 118-131.
    7. Gizatulina, Alia & Gorelkina, Olga, 2021. "Selling “Money” on eBay: A field study of surplus division," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 19-38.
    8. Stephen Martin, 2018. "Behavioral antitrust," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 15, pages 404-454, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Crosetto, Paolo & Güth, Werner, 2021. "What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Juri Nithammer & Andreas Orland, 2022. "Inefficient Cooperation Under Stochastic and Strategic Uncertainty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 755-782, May.
    11. Roberto Sarkisian, 2017. "Team Incentives under Moral and Altruistic Preferences: Which Team to Choose?," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-24, September.
    12. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi & Ivan Soraperra, 2014. "An ultimatum game with multidimensional response strategies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-018, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Jung, Seeun & Vranceanu, Radu, 2015. "Experimental Evidence on Gender Interaction in Lying Behavior," ESSEC Working Papers WP1514, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    14. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    15. Miguel A. Costa‐Gomes & Yuan Ju & Jiawen Li, 2019. "Role‐Reversal Consistency: An Experimental Study Of The Golden Rule," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 685-704, January.
    16. Yuval Heller & Eyal Winter, 2016. "Rule Rationality," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 997-1026, August.
    17. Alger, Ingela & Lehmann, Laurent & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2018. "Evolution of preferences in group-structured populations: genes, guns, and culture," IAST Working Papers 18-73, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Oct 2019.
    18. D. Cagno & A. Galliera & W. Güth & N. Pace & L. Panaccione, 2017. "Experience and gender effects in acquisition experiment with value messages," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 71-97, January.
    19. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    20. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.

    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:spr:eaiere:v:19:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-022-00231-x. 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.