Time inconsistency and learning in bargaining games
AbstractThe literature on time-inconsistent preferences introduced naive, partially naive and sophisticated as types of agents that represent different levels of unawareness of agents' self-control problems. This paper incorporates time-inconsistent players in a sequential bargaining model. We first consider 'naive' agents who never learn about their types and show that bargaining between such a player and a standard exponential agent ends in immediate agreement. The more naive a player, the higher his share. If naive agents can learn their type over time, we show that there is a critical date such that there is no agreement before that date. Hence, existence of time-inconsistent players who can learn as they play the game can be another explanation for delays in bargaining.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal International Journal of Game Theory.
Volume (Year): 36 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00182/index.htm
Other versions of this item:
- Zafer Akin, 2005. "Time Inconsistency And Learning In Bargaining Games," Game Theory and Information 0507003, EconWPA.
- C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
- D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
- Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 1999.
"Incentives For Procrastinators,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 769-816, August.
- Ariel Rubinstein, 2010.
"Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
252, David K. Levine.
- Laibson, David, 1997.
"Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 443-77, May.
- Fabian Herweg & Daniel Müller, 2008.
"Performance of Procrastinators: On the Value of Deadlines,"
Bonn Econ Discussion Papers
bgse3_2008, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Fabian Herweg & Daniel Müller, 2011. "Performance of procrastinators: on the value of deadlines," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 329-366, March.
- Akin, Zafer, 2009.
"Imperfect information processing in sequential bargaining games with present biased preferences,"
Journal of Economic Psychology,
Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 642-650, August.
- Zafer Akin, 2008. "Imperfect Information Processing in Sequential Bargaining Games with Present Biased Preferences," Working Papers 0810, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Department of Economics.
- Jinrui Pan & Craig Webb & Horst Zank, 2013. "Discounting the Subjective Present and Future," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 1305, Economics, The University of Manchester.
- Zafer Akin, 2010.
"Intertemporal Decision Making with Present Biased Preferences,"
1001, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Department of Economics.
- Akin, Zafer, 2012. "Intertemporal decision making with present biased preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 30-47.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.