IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20240009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of the Menstrual Cycle on Bargaining Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Lozano

    (New York University Abu Dhabi)

  • Arno Riedl

    (CESifo, IZA, Netspar & Maastricht University)

  • Christina Rott

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

We investigate experimentally how the menstrual cycle affects bargaining behavior and bargaining outcomes of women. Female participants negotiate in an unstructured bilateral bargaining game with asymmetric information about the allocation of a surplus (’pie size’). We find that the menstrual cycle affects bargaining behavior and that the effects depend on players’ information. Players who are informed about the pie size are less compromising during ovulation and receive higher payoffs conditional on reaching an agreement. Uninformed players achieve higher final payoffs during ovulation, which is mainly driven by higher agreement rates. Our study provides first evidence that biological factors affect bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Lozano & Arno Riedl & Christina Rott, 2024. "The Impact of the Menstrual Cycle on Bargaining Behavior," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 24-009/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20240009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/24009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pearson, Matthew & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    2. Chen, Yan & Katuščák, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2013. "Why canʼt a woman bid more like a man?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 181-213.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. 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.
    5. C. Eisenegger & M. Naef & R. Snozzi & M. Heinrichs & E. Fehr, 2010. "Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 356-359, January.
    6. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2008. "Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 414-427, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrzej Baranski & Rebecca Morton, 2022. "The determinants of multilateral bargaining: a comprehensive analysis of Baron and Ferejohn majoritarian bargaining experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1079-1108, September.
    9. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    10. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    11. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
    12. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    13. Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz & Nagore Iriberri, 2023. "Gender differences in alternating-offer bargaining: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 879-914, September.
    14. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-470.
    15. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl & Giang Tran, 2017. "Giving in the face of risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 95-118, December.
    16. D’Exelle, Ben & Gutekunst, Christine & Riedl, Arno, 2023. "The effect of gender and gender pairing on bargaining: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 237-269.
    17. Cettolin, Elena & Riedl, Arno & Tran, Giang, 2017. "Giving in the face of risk," Other publications TiSEM 0ed4d209-f852-440c-a012-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344.
    19. Michael Kosfeld & Markus Heinrichs & Paul J. Zak & Urs Fischbacher & Ernst Fehr, 2005. "Oxytocin increases trust in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 435(7042), pages 673-676, June.
    20. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344, December.
    21. Chen, Kang & Tang, Fang-Fang, 2009. "Cultural differences between Tibetans and ethnic Han Chinese in ultimatum bargaining experiments," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 78-84, March.
    22. Murnighan, J Keith & Roth, Alvin E & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "Risk Aversion in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-124, March.
    23. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    24. Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo von Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2018. "Hormonal Contraceptives Do Not Impact Economic Preferences: Evidence from a Randomized Trial," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4515-4532, October.
    25. Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2015. "The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 85-103.
    26. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2015. "Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 249-266, February.
    27. David Wozniak & William T. Harbaugh & Ulrich Mayr, 2014. "The Menstrual Cycle and Performance Feedback Alter Gender Differences in Competitive Choices," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 161-198.
    28. Stephanie C Lazzaro & Robb B Rutledge & Daniel R Burghart & Paul W Glimcher, 2016. "The Impact of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Economic Choice and Rationality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    29. repec:dgr:uvatin:20090082 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    31. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "The impact of the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-10.
    32. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    2. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2015. "Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 249-266, February.
    4. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2015. "Do risk and time preferences have biological roots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 235-256, July.
    5. Pearson, Matthew & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    6. Fišar, Miloš & Cingl, Lubomír & Reggiani, Tommaso & Kundtová Klocová, Eva & Kundt, Radek & Krátký, Jan & Kostolanská, Katarína & Bencúrová, Petra & Pešková, Marie Kudličková & Marečková, Klára, 2023. "Ovulatory shift, hormonal changes, and no effects on incentivized decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    7. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    8. Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "Sex Hormones and Choice under Risk," Working Papers 127, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    9. Schwaninger, Manuel, 2022. "Sharing with the powerless third: Other-regarding preferences in dynamic bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 341-355.
    10. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2017. "Justice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3739-3759, November.
    11. Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo von Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2018. "Hormonal Contraceptives Do Not Impact Economic Preferences: Evidence from a Randomized Trial," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4515-4532, October.
    12. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    13. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    14. Thomas Buser, 2011. "Hormones and Social Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-046/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl & Giang Tran, 2017. "Giving in the face of risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 95-118, December.
    16. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2015. "Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 249-266, February.
    18. Thomas Meissner & David Albrecht, 2022. "Debt Aversion: Theory and Measurement," Papers 2207.07538, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    19. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    20. Halko, Marja-Liisa & Lappalainen, Olli & Sääksvuori, Lauri, 2021. "Do non-choice data reveal economic preferences? Evidence from biometric data and compensation-scheme choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 87-104.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bargaining; asymmetric information; menstrual cycle; biological factors;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D87 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Neuroeconomics
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20240009. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.