Group Decision-Making in Ultimatum Bargaining: An Experimental Study
AbstractMany rent-sharing decisions in a society are result from a bargaining process between groups of individuals (such as between the executive and the legislative branches of government, between legislative factions, between corporate management and shareholders, etc.). The purpose of this work is to conduct a laboratory study of the effect of different voting procedures on group decision-making in the context of ultimatum bargaining. An earlier study (Bornstein and Yaniv, ) has suggested that when the bargaining game is played by unstructured groups of agents, rather than by individuals, the division of the payoff is substantially affected in favor of the ultimatum-proposers. Our theoretical arguments suggest that one explanation for this could be implicit voting rules within groups. We propose to explicitly structure the group decision-making as voting and study the impact of different voting rules on the bargaining outcome.
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 InfoPaper provided by Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM in its series Working Papers with number 0407.
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2004
Date of revision:
Bargaining games; group decision making and experimental design;
Other versions of this item:
- Alexander Elbittar & Andrei Gomberg & Laura Sour, 2004. "Group Decision-Making in Ultimatum Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000267, David K. Levine.
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Auctions
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
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.:
- Robert, Christopher & Carnevale, Peter J., 1997. "Group Choice in Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 256-279, November.
- Cason, Timothy N & Mui, Vai-Lam, 1997. "A Laboratory Study of Group Polarisation in the Team Dictator Game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1465-83, September.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998.
"A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory Of Fairness, Competition, And Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868, August.
- Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
- Joseph Henrich, 2000. "Does Culture Matter in Economic Behavior? Ultimatum Game Bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 973-979, September.
- Brit Grosskopf, 2003. "Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 141-158, October.
- Matthew Rabin, 2000.
"Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem,"
Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
- Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Economics Working Papers E00-279, University of California at Berkeley.
- Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt731230f8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7667, David K. Levine.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0012001, EconWPA.
- Kennan, John & Wilson, Robert, 1993.
"Bargaining with Private Information,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 45-104, March.
- Kocher, Martin & Matthias Sutter, 2003.
"Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments,"
Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2003
125, Royal Economic Society.
- Martin Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments," Empirica, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 63-88, March.
- Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, . "Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-27, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
- J. Ochs & Alvin E. Roth, 1998.
"An experimental study of sequential bargaining,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
331, David K. Levine.
- David K. Levine, 1998.
"Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiment,"
Review of Economic Dynamics,
Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(3), pages 593-622, July.
- Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More â€œRationalâ€ Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
- Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
- Prasnikar, Vesna & Roth, Alvin E, 1992.
"Considerations of Fairness and Strategy: Experimental Data from Sequential Games,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 107(3), pages 865-88, August.
- V. Prasnikar & A. Roth, 1998. "Considerations of fairness and strategy: experimental data from sequential games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 451, David K. Levine.
- Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
- Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans vanWinden, 2002. "Exploring Group Behavior in a Power-to-Take Video Experiment," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse7_2002, University of Bonn, Germany, revised May 2002.
- Gary Bornstein & Tamar Kugler & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2002. "Individual and Group Decisions in the Centipede Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Discussion Paper Series dp298, The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
- Philip Bond & Hülya Eraslan, 2004. "Strategic Voting over Strategic Proposals, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-014, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 02 Jan 2007.
- Philip Bond & H�lya Eraslan, 2010.
"Strategic Voting over Strategic Proposals,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 459-490.
- Philip Bond & Hulya Eraslan, 2008. "Strategic Voting over Strategic Proposals," Economics Working Paper Archive 547, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
- Hulya Eraslan & Philip Bond, 2007. "Strategic Voting over Strategic Proposals," 2007 Meeting Papers 167, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Wieland Mueller & Fangfang Tan, 2011.
"Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon,"
Vienna Economics Papers
1111, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
- Wieland Mueller & Fangfang Tan, 2011. "Who Acts More Like a Game Theorist? Group and Individual Play in a Sequential Market Game and the Effect of the Time Horizon," Working Papers who_acts_more_like_a_game, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
- Alexander Elbittar & Andrei Gomberg, 2012. ""My friends: it would be an error to accept": Communication and group identity in a bargaining setting," Working Papers 1203, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Diego Dominguez).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.