I want to know: Willingness to pay for unconditional veto power
AbstractIn the Yes/No game, like in the ultimatum game, proposer and responder can share a monetary reward. In both games the proposer suggests a reward distribution which the responder can accept or reject (yielding 0-payoffs). The games only differ in that the responder does (not) learn the suggested reward distribution in the Ultimatum (Yes/No) game. Although an opportunistic responder would always accept and therefore should not be willing to pay for knowing the proposal, earlier results (Güth, Levati, Ockenfels, and Weiland, 2005) show that offers in the Yes/No game are less generous and that responders, on average, earn less in the Yes/No game. By experimentally eliciting the willingness to pay for learning the proposal, we investigate whether these effects are adequately anticipated or whether they are overstated, as observed in an earlier related study (Gehrig, Güth, Levinsky, 2003).
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 Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group in its series Papers on Strategic Interaction with number 2006-21.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2006
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-09-30 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2006-09-30 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-GTH-2006-09-30 (Game Theory)
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.:
- Thomas Gehrig & Werner Güth & René Levínský, 2003. "Ultimatum Offers and the Role of Transparency: An Experimental Study of Information Acquisition," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-16, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Charness, Gary B & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2006.
"Promises & Partnership,"
University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series
qt0127h86v, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2005.
"Bargaining Outside the Lab – A Newspaper Experiment of a Three-Person Ultimatum Game,"
Papers on Strategic Interaction
2002-11, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 449-469, 03.
- Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter & Werner Güth, 2005. "Bargaining Outside the Lab - A Newspaper Experiment of a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-04, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Werner Guth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2002. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three person-ultimatum game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00050, The Field Experiments Website.
- Gehrig, Thomas & Guth, Werner & Levati, Vittoria & Levinsky, Rene & Ockenfels, Axel & Uske, Tobias & Weiland, Torsten, 2007.
"Buying a pig in a poke: An experimental study of unconditional veto power,"
Journal of Economic Psychology,
Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 692-703, December.
- Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Axel Ockenfels & Torsten Weiland, 2005. ""Buying a pig in a poke": An experimental study of unconditional veto power," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-39, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
- Ariel Rubinstein, 2010.
"Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
252, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- M. Rabin, 2001.
"Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
511, David K. Levine.
- Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
- Matthew Rabin., 1992. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," Economics Working Papers 92-199, University of California at Berkeley.
- Geanakoplos, John & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1989. "Psychological games and sequential rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 60-79, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Karin Richter).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.