Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A General Experiment on Bargaining in Demand Games with Outside Options

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kahn, Lawrence M
  • Munighan, J Keith

Abstract

This experiment factorially combined the major independent variables from previous demand-game experiments (discount factors, outside options, termination probability, and first mover). Game-theoretic predictions were largely refuted by the data and outcomes were often inefficient. Players without an outside option demanded more than predicted and those with an option appeared to anticipate this behavior. Nonetheless, there was a positive relationship between differences in equilibrium predictions and differences in behavior. Bargainers appeared to focus on a minimally acceptable offer in making their demands and in considering the likelihood that the other party would accept their offer. Copyright 1993 by American Economic Association.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199312%2983%3A5%3C1260%3AAGEOBI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J&origin=repec
File Function: full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by American Economic Association in its journal American Economic Review.

Volume (Year): 83 (1993)
Issue (Month): 5 (December)
Pages: 1260-80

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:83:y:1993:i:5:p:1260-80

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Web: http://www.aeaweb.org/subscribe.html

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Do Wealth Differences Affect Fairness Considerations?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(2), pages 391-429, 05.
  2. Murnighan, J. Keith & Saxon, Michael Scott, 1998. "Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 415-445, August.
  3. Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
  4. Anke S. Kessler & Christoph Lülfesmann, 2002. "The Theory of Human Capital Revisited: On the Interaction of General and Specific Investments," CESifo Working Paper Series 776, CESifo Group Munich.
  5. Olivier Armantier, 2001. "Does Wealth Affect Fairness Considerations?," Department of Economics Working Papers 01-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
  6. Straub, Paul G. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1995. "An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 345-364, August.
  7. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2012. "How responsive are people to changes in their bargaining position? Earned bargaining power and the 50–50 norm," Economics Series 2012_6, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance.
  8. Randolph Sloof, 2003. "Price-setting Power versus Private Information," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-099/1, Tinbergen Institute.
  9. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Rudisill, McAndrew, 2003. "Fairness, escalation, deference, and spite: strategies used in labor-management bargaining experiments with outside options," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 427-442, August.
  10. repec:dgr:uvatin:2003099 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Joep Sonnemans, 2007. "Who should invest in specific training?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 329-357, April.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:83:y:1993:i:5:p:1260-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jane Voros) or (Michael P. Albert).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.