IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-12-00497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency in Bargaining Games with Alternating Offers

Author

Listed:
  • Vjollca Sadiraj

    () (Georgia State University)

  • Juan Sun

    () (Georgia State Univeristy)

Abstract

Bargaining games model situations in which the realization of potential benefits is jeopardized by conflicting bargaining powers. Most of the literature on bargaining behavior focuses on bargaining over gains. Exploration of behavior in situations under which agents bargain over losses has received only limited attention from the profession. An important question is whether the negative effect of competing bargaining powers on the efficiency of agreements is more severe in bargaining over gains or over losses. Another understudied research question is how the likelihood that the outcome of a negotiation will actually be implemented affects efficiency of bargaining. We design an experiment that addresses these two questions. We find that in alternating offers games, outcomes of bargaining over gains are more efficient than outcomes of bargaining over losses. We also find that the likelihood that an interaction is implemented has a positive effect on the efficiency of bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Vjollca Sadiraj & Juan Sun, 2012. "Efficiency in Bargaining Games with Alternating Offers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 2366-2374.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2012/Volume32/EB-12-V32-I3-P229.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Andreoni & Emily Blanchard, 2006. "Testing subgame perfection apart from fairness in ultimatum games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(4), pages 307-321, December.
    2. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015, November.
    3. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, December.
    4. Ken Binmore, 2007. "Does Game Theory Work? The Bargaining Challenge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262026074, January.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    2. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    3. Paul J. Healy & Alexander L. Brown, 2016. "Separated Decisions," Working Papers 16-02, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Efficiency; Bargaining; Experiments; Payoff Protocols;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00497. 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: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.