IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/mathme/v88y2018i2d10.1007_s00186-018-0636-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous reference points in bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Emin Karagözoğlu

    (Bilkent University
    CESifo)

  • Kerim Keskin

    (Kadir Has University)

Abstract

We allow the reference point in (cooperative) bargaining problems with a reference point to be endogenously determined. Two loss averse agents simultaneously and strategically choose their reference points, taking into consideration that with a certain probability they will not be able to reach an agreement and will receive their disagreement point outcomes, whereas with the remaining probability an arbitrator will distribute the resource by using (an extended) Gupta–Livne bargaining solution (Gupta and Livne in Manag Sci 34:1303–1314, 1988). The model delivers intuitive equilibrium comparative statics on the breakdown probability, the loss aversion coefficients, and the disagreement point outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2018. "Endogenous reference points in bargaining," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 88(2), pages 283-295, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:mathme:v:88:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s00186-018-0636-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s00186-018-0636-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00186-018-0636-2
    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/s00186-018-0636-2?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. Tore Ellingsen & Topi Miettinen, 2008. "Commitment and Conflict in Bilateral Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1629-1635, September.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Björn Bartling & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2015. "Reference Points, Social Norms, And Fairness In Contract Renegotiations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 98-129, February.
    4. Blount, Sally & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C. & Neale, Margaret A., 1996. "The Price Is Right--Or Is It? A Reference Point Model of Two-Party Price Negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Bolton, Gary E. & Karagözoğlu, Emin, 2016. "On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: The importance of credible claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 164-179.
    6. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    7. Muthoo, Abhinay, 1992. "Revocable Commitment and Sequential Bargaining," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 378-387, March.
    8. Kyle Hyndman, 2011. "Repeated bargaining with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 527-549, August.
    9. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
    10. Vartiainen, Hannu, 2007. "Collective choice with endogenous reference outcome," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 172-180, January.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    14. Bozbay, Irem & Dietrich, Franz & Peters, Hans, 2012. "Bargaining with endogenous disagreement: The extended Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 407-417.
    15. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.
    16. Thomson, William, 1981. "A class of solutions to bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 431-441, December.
    17. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2012. "Alternating offers bargaining with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 103-118.
    18. Todd Sarver, 2012. "Optimal Reference Points and Anticipation," Discussion Papers 1566, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    19. Brito, Dagobert L & Buoncristiani, A M & Intriligator, M D, 1977. "A New Approach to the Nash Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(5), pages 1163-1172, July.
    20. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2011. "The Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 58-64, January.
    21. Ellingsen, Tore & Miettinen, Topi, 2014. "Tough negotiations: Bilateral bargaining with durable commitments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 353-366.
    22. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    23. repec:dgr:umamet:2009030 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar) & Gómez, Juan Camilo & Vohra, Rakesh V., 2011. "The Tempered Aspirations solution for bargaining problems with a reference point," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 144-150.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    2. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    4. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    6. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    7. Dong Cheng & Yong Wu & Yuxiang Yuan & Faxin Cheng & Dianwei Chen, 2024. "Modeling the Maximum Perceived Utility Consensus Based on Prospect Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 951-975, October.

    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. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    4. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2019. "Between anchors and aspirations: a new family of bargaining solutions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 53-73, June.
    5. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    6. Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Daniel John Zizzo, 2020. "Responding to (un)reasonable requests by an authority," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 287-311, October.
    7. Wentao Yi & Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan & Yuzhong Yang, 2021. "Green Supply Chain Management with Nash Bargaining Loss-Averse Reference Dependence," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-26, December.
    8. Chunsheng Cui & Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan, 2018. "Credibilistic Loss Aversion Nash Equilibrium for Bimatrix Games with Triangular Fuzzy Payoffs," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-16, December.
    9. Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan, 2019. "Subgame Perfect Equilibrium in the Rubinstein Bargaining Game with Loss Aversion," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-23, March.
    10. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    11. Husnain Fateh Ahmad, 2020. "Self serving reference points in k−double auctions," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 77-85, January.
    12. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    15. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2013. "Reference dependent altruism in demand bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 127-140.
    16. Zhaoyu Cao & Yucheng Zou & Xu Zhao & Kairong Hong & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Multidimensional Fairness Equilibrium Evaluation of Urban Housing Expropriation Compensation Based on VIKOR," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26, February.
    17. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    18. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    19. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Bernd Irlenbusch & Rainer Michael Rilke & Gari Walkowitz, 2018. "Asymmetric outside options in ultimatum bargaining: a systematic analysis," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 301-329, March.
    20. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2011. "Ultimata bargaining: generosity without social motives," MPRA Paper 33613, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:mathme:v:88:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s00186-018-0636-2. 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.