IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v72y2018icp106-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Galliera, Arianna

Abstract

An incentive scheme in a multi-task experiment may trigger different types of behavior in participants. This experimental study allows participants to decide between being paid to complete a random task or being paid an average across all tasks completed in a bargaining game where the buyer and seller have partly conflicting interests and are asymmetrically informed. We find that both past experience and individual characteristics have a significant effect on the payment scheme selected and the final trading result. Although the payment method is likely to be correlated with risk preferences, it may also be influenced by ego-defensive concerns. Analysis of the self-selected Random Lottery Incentives scheme (RLI) and the Cumulative Scheme (CS) shows both individual and social effects: sellers who prefer CS over RLI receive a larger share of the surplus, and (female) buyers choosing RLI play with a lower degree of trust with the aim of closing better deals.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:106-120
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804317301428
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.003?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    4. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Marco Casari & John C. Ham & John H. Kagel, 2007. "Selection Bias, Demographic Effects, and Ability Effects in Common Value Auction Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1278-1304, September.
    6. Cotton, Christopher & McIntyre, Frank & Price, Joseph, 2013. "Gender differences in repeated competition: Evidence from school math contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 52-66.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk, 2011. "Performance Pay and Multidimensional Sorting: Productivity, Preferences, and Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 556-590, April.
    8. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    9. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    10. 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.
    11. Tor Eriksson & Sabrina Teyssier & Marie‐Claire Villeval, 2009. "Self‐Selection And The Efficiency Of Tournaments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(3), pages 530-548, July.
    12. William Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2002. "Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 53-84, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Alain Kabundi, 2012. "Working Paper 152 - Dynamics of Inflation in Uganda," Working Paper Series 401, African Development Bank.
    15. Migheli, Matteo, 2015. "Gender at work: Incentives and self-sorting," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 10-18.
    16. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    17. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    18. 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.
    19. Susan K. Laury, 2006. "Pay One or Pay All: Random Selection of One Choice for Payment," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-24, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    20. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    21. Stefan Luckner & Christof Weinhardt, 2007. "How to Pay Traders in Information Markets: Results from a Field Experiment," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(2), pages 147-156, July.
    22. Glenn Harrison & J. Swarthout, 2014. "Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 423-438, October.
    23. Stefan Luckner & Christof Weinhardt, 2007. "How to pay traders in information markets? Results from a field experiment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00107, The Field Experiments Website.
    24. Bellemare, Charles & Shearer, Bruce, 2010. "Sorting, incentives and risk preferences: Evidence from a field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(3), pages 345-348, September.
    25. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    26. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    27. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2012. "Asymmetrically Dominated Choice Problems and Random Incentive Mechanisms," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-10, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2014.
    28. James C Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2014. "Asymmetrically Dominated Choice Problems, the Isolation Hypothesis and Random Incentive Mechanisms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-3, March.
    29. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    30. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
    31. Bruno Biais & Denis Hilton & Karine Mazurier & Sébastien Pouget, 2005. "Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 287-312.
    32. Massimo Massa, 2009. "Incentives and Mutual Fund Performance: Higher Performance or Just Higher Risk Taking?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(5), pages 1777-1815, May.
    33. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    34. Weber, Martin & Camerer, Colin F., 1998. "The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 167-184, January.
    35. Daniela Di Cagno & Arianna Galliera & Werner G�th & Noemi Pace & Luca Pannaccione, 2014. "Make-Up and Suspicion in Acquiring-a-Company. An experiment controlling for gender and gender constellations," Working Papers 2014:26, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    36. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    37. Noemi Pace & Daniela Di Cagno & Arianna Galliera & Werner G�th & Luca Panaccione, 2015. "Experience and Gender Effects in an Acquiring-a-Company Experiment Allowing for Value Messages," Working Papers 2015:30, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    38. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    39. Demougin, Dominique & Fluet, Claude, 2001. "Monitoring versus incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1741-1764, October.
    40. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    41. 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.
    42. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    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. Andrej Angelovski & Daniela Cagno & Werner Güth & Francesca Marazzi, 2020. "Telling the other what one knows? Strategic lying in a modified acquiring-a-company experiment with two-sided private information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 97-119, February.
    2. Seth, Himanshu & Talwar, Shalini & Bhatia, Anuj & Saxena, Akanksha & Dhir, Amandeep, 2020. "Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    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. Arianna Galliera & Noemi Pace, 2015. "To Switch or Not to Switch Payment Scheme? Determinants and Effects in a Bargaining Game," Working Papers 2015:33, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    2. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    3. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Halladay, Brianna, 2016. "Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 141-150.
    5. Herranz-Zarzoso, Noemí & Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa, 2020. "Framing and repetition effects on risky choices: A behavioural approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2018. "Framing and repetition effects on risky choices: A behavioral approach," Working Papers 2018/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    7. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Risk Preferences and the Role of Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 305-328, April.
    8. Yi Li, 2021. "The ABC mechanism: an incentive compatible payoff mechanism for elicitation of outcome and probability transformations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1019-1046, September.
    9. Brown, Alexander L. & Healy, Paul J., 2018. "Separated decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-34.
    10. David J. Freeman & Guy Mayraz, 2019. "Why choice lists increase risk taking," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 131-154, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    14. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    15. Bradler, Christiane, 2015. "How creative are you? An experimental study on self-selection in a competitive incentive scheme for creative performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-021, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    18. Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel & Larribeau, Sophie, 2015. "Gender differences in tournament and flat-wage schemes: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 103-115.
    19. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    20. Schüssler, Katharina, 2018. "The Influence of Overconfidence and Competition Neglect On Entry Into Competition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 87, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; Experiment; Gender; Payment scheme;
    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
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods

    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:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:106-120. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.