Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Efficiency by Trust in Fairness? Multiperiod Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments with an Increasing Cake

Contents:

Author Info

  • Guth, Werner
  • Ockenfels, Peter
  • Wendel, Markus
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Previous ultimatum bargaining experiments have shown that bargainers face the conflict whether to exploit bargaining power or to comply with basic norms of distributive justice. In multiperiod ultimatum bargaining for an increasing cake, trust in fairness can enable cooperation and thus more efficient results but is also open to opportunistic exploitation. In such a game the two players take turns in being the one who suggest an agreement and decides whether this is the final proposal, whereas his partner can only accept this proposal or reject it. While the game theoretic solution implies an immediate agreement assigning nearly all the cake to the demanding player, efficiency requires to postpone the agreement to the last possible round. Our 2 [by] 2-factorial design varies the number of possible bargaining periods and the cake increase, allowing us to explore several hypotheses.

    Download Info

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer in its journal International Journal of Game Theory.

    Volume (Year): 22 (1993)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 51-73

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:22:y:1993:i:1:p:51-73

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00182/index.htm

    Order Information:
    Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

    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. Heijden, E.C.M. van der & Nelissen, J.H.M. & Potters, J.J.M. & Verbon, H.A.A., 1998. "The poverty game and the pension game: The role of reciprocity," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-76585, Tilburg University.
    2. Pranab Bardhan & Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 1998. "Wealth Inequality, Wealth Constraints and Economic Performance," Microeconomics 9805002, EconWPA.
    3. Güth, W., 1993. "On ultimatum bargaining experiments: A personal review," Discussion Paper 1993-17, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Anderhub, Vital & Güth, Werner & Engelmann, Dirk, 1999. "An experimental study of the repeated trust game with incomplete information," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,97, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    5. Werner Güth & Martin G. Kocher, 2013. "More than Thirty Years of Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments: Motives, Variations, and a Survey of the Recent Literature," CESifo Working Paper Series 4380, CESifo Group Munich.
    6. Benchekroun, Hassan & Long, Ngo Van, 2008. "The build-up of cooperative behavior among non-cooperative selfish agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 239-252, July.

    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:spr:jogath:v:22:y:1993:i:1:p:51-73. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F Baum).

    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.