IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levarc/331.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An experimental study of sequential bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • J. Ochs
  • Alvin E. Roth

Abstract

In a study of alternating offer bargaining with discounting, perfect equilibrium was found to have little predictive power under the conventional assumption that bargainers' utility is measured by their monetary payoffs. Instead, the authors' data exhibit a first mover advantage, independent of the equilibrium prediction. However the pattern of rejected offers and counterproposals shows bargainers' utility was not measured by their monetary payoffs. The authors also reanalyze data from earlier experiments, finding a similar pattern of rejections and counterproposals. This suggests that uncontrolled nonmonetary components of utility may have played a role in those experiments also, offering a possible explanation for the mutually inconsistent conclusions reached. Copyright 1989 by American Economic Association.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • J. Ochs & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "An experimental study of sequential bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 331, David K. Levine.
    • Handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4331.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    3. Hoffman, Elizabeth & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1982. "The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 73-98, April.
    4. Roth, Alvin E. & Malouf, Michael W. K. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1981. "Sociological versus strategic factors in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 153-177, June.
    5. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, 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. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    2. Rami Zwick & Xiao-Ping Chen, 1999. "What Price Fairness? A Bargaining Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(6), pages 804-823, June.
    3. William S. Lovejoy, 2010. "Bargaining Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2282-2301, December.
    4. Michael Spencer, 2010. "Loyalty, protocol, bargainer characteristics, and rationality in an experimental investigation of bilateral bargaining in dyads," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 895-900.
    5. Jennie Huang & Judd B. Kessler & Muriel Niederle, 2024. "Fairness has less impact when agents are less informed," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 155-174, March.
    6. Christine Jolls, 2007. "Behavioral Law and Economics," NBER Working Papers 12879, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    8. Christopher Bruce & Jeremy Clark, 2010. "The Efficiency of Direct Public Involvement in Environmental Policymaking: An Experimental Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 157-182, February.
    9. van der Heijden, Eline C. M. & Nelissen, Jan H. M. & Verbon, Harrie A. A., 1997. "Altruism and fairness in a public pension system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 505-518, April.
    10. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
    11. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    14. Paul, Maureen, 2006. "A cross-section analysis of the fairness-of-pay perception of UK employees," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 243-267, April.
    15. Ruske, René & Suttner, Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität," CIW Discussion Papers 03/2012, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    16. Ruske René & Suttner Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? – Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität / How (un-)fair are economists? New empirical evidence on market valuation and rationality," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 179-194, January.
    17. Okada, Akira & Riedl, Arno, 2005. "Inefficiency and social exclusion in a coalition formation game: experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 278-311, February.
    18. 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.
    19. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    20. Kirchsteiger, Georg, 1994. "The role of envy in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-389, December.

    More about this item

    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:cla:levarc:331. 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: David K. Levine (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.dklevine.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.