Equal Splits or Product Prices: An Experiment
AbstractThis paper compares the choice of focal points in a Nash Demand Game embedded in an abstract frame with the corresponding choices in a game with a real product frame where parties bargain for a well-known consumer product. We find that the frame has a substantial impact on the fraction of subjects choosing the equal split outcome casting doubt on the robustness of this solution in bargaining over real goods. The paper shows that there is notable heterogeneity among subjects with regard to their choices of focal points and reports individual characteristics predicting these choices.
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 Lund University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2011:16.
Length: 23 pages
Date of creation: 02 May 2011
Date of revision: 22 Apr 2013
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Box 7082, S-220 07 Lund,Sweden
Phone: +46 +46 222 0000
Fax: +46 +46 2224613
Web page: http://www.nek.lu.se/en
More information through EDIRC
focal points; Nash Demand Game; heterogeneity; framing; equilibrium selection;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics; Underlying Principles
- D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010.
"Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?,"
Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
- Blanco, Mariana & Engelmann, Dirk & Koch, Alexander K. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2008. "Belief Elicitation in Experiments: Is there a Hedging Problem?," IZA Discussion Papers 3517, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Bergman, Oscar & Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Svensson, Cicek, 2010. "Anchoring and cognitive ability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 66-68, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Edgerton).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.