IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v9y2012i1p31-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Embedded Nash Bargaining: Risk Aversion and Impatience

Author

Listed:
  • Steven A. Lippman

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095)

  • Kevin F. McCardle

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095)

Abstract

In telling the tale of, and analyzing the decisions made by, an heir claimant to a large fortune, Lippman and McCardle (2004) introduce embedded Nash bargaining , an approach to modeling joint decision making. They embed several bargaining games in a joint decision tree and calculate the expected payoffs to the two sides if the Nash bargaining solution is used to generate the intermediate payoffs from bargaining. The purpose of the current paper is to provide theoretical underpinnings for that approach: we establish some general results regarding the existence, uniqueness, and comparative statics (with respect to costs, risk aversion, and time discounting) of the embedded Nash bargaining solution. In particular, when the disagreement payoff is random, we show that a decision maker's embedded Nash bargaining payoff decreases with both his risk aversion and impatience, and it increases with his opponent's risk aversion and impatience.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven A. Lippman & Kevin F. McCardle, 2012. "Embedded Nash Bargaining: Risk Aversion and Impatience," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 31-40, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:31-40
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1110.0224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1110.0224
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.1110.0224?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
    ---><---

    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. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    3. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1982. "Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 113-120, February.
    4. J. Eric Bickel, 2006. "Some Determinants of Corporate Risk Aversion," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 233-251, December.
    5. Prakash, Prem, 1977. "On the consistency of a gambler with time preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 92-98, June.
    6. Safra, Zvi & Zhou, Lin & Zilcha, Itzhak, 1990. "Risk Aversion in the Nash Bargaining Problem with Risky Outcomes and Risky Disagreement Points," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 961-965, July.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. Adam Brandenburger, 1992. "Knowledge and Equilibrium in Games," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 83-101, Fall.
    9. Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson, 1983. "Bargaining under Incomplete Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 835-851, October.
    10. Roth, Alvin E & Rothblum, Uriel G, 1982. "Risk Aversion and Nash's Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 639-647, May.
    11. Ronald A. Howard, 1988. "Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 679-695, June.
    12. Nachman, David C., 1975. "Risk aversion, impatience, and optimal timing decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 196-246, October.
    13. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    14. Craig W. Kirkwood, 2004. "Approximating Risk Aversion in Decision Analysis Applications," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 51-67, March.
    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. Jason R. W. Merrick & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Refik Soyer & L. Robin Keller, 2012. "From the Editors---Games and Decisions in Reliability and Risk," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 81-85, June.
    2. Jackson, Canek & Pascual, Rodrigo & Mac Cawley, Alejandro & Godoy, Sergio, 2023. "Product–service system negotiation in aircraft lease contracts with option of disagreement," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. L. Robin Keller, 2012. "From the Editor---Decisions over Time (Exploding Offers or Purchase Regret), in Game Settings (Embedded Nash Bargaining or Adversarial Games), and in Influence Diagrams," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, March.
    4. Jackson, Canek & Pascual, Rodrigo, 2021. "Joint pricing and maintenance strategies in availability-based product-service systems under different overhaul conditions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    5. Luo, Chunlin & Zhou, Xiaoyang & Lev, Benjamin, 2022. "Core, shapley value, nucleolus and nash bargaining solution: A Survey of recent developments and applications in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    7. Ríos Insua, David & Ruggeri, Fabrizio & Soyer, Refik & Rasines, Daniel G., 2018. "Adversarial issues in reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 1113-1119.

    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. Steven A. Lippman & Kevin F. McCardle, 2004. "Sex, Lies, and the Hillblom Estate: A Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 149-166, September.
    2. White, Lucy, 2006. "Prudence in Bargaining: The Effect of Uncertainty on Bargaining Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5822, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Jyotishka Ray & Syam Menon & Vijay Mookerjee, 2020. "Bargaining over Data: When Does Making the Buyer More Informed Help?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    5. Ronghuo Zheng & Tinglong Dai & Katia Sycara & Nilanjan Chakraborty, 2016. "Automated Multilateral Negotiation on Multiple Issues with Private Information," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 612-628, November.
    6. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    7. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.
    8. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    9. Volij, Oscar & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "On risk aversion and bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 120-140, October.
    10. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    11. Houba, Harold & Wen, Quan, 2006. "Different time preferences and non-stationary contracts in negotiations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 273-279, May.
    12. 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.
    13. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    14. Geoffroy de Clippel & David Perez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2010. "Egalitarian Equivalence under Asymmetric Information," Working Papers 2010-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    15. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2012. "Egalitarian equivalence under asymmetric information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 413-423.
    16. Kunter, Marcus, 2012. "Coordination via cost and revenue sharing in manufacturer–retailer channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 477-486.
    17. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2007. "Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash's bargaining theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 291-305, January.
    18. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    19. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    20. Craig S. Webb, 2023. "Dynamic Preference Foundations of Expected Exponentially-Discounted Utility," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2303, Economics, The University of Manchester.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:31-40. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.