IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v207y2010i1p380-390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To reveal or not to reveal? Strategic disclosure of private information in negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Ching Chyi
  • Ferguson, Michael J.

Abstract

Within the bargaining literature, it is widely held that negotiators should never reveal information that will lead to disclosure of their reservation prices. We analyze a simple bargaining and search model in which the informed buyer can choose to reveal his cost of searching for an outside price (which determines his reservation price) to the uninformed seller. We demonstrate that buyers can be made better off by revealing their search cost. More interestingly, we also find that, depending on the assumed distribution of search costs, sometimes buyers with relatively low search costs should reveal their private information whereas in other cases buyers with relatively high search costs should do so. We then test our model experimentally and find that subjects' behavior is not entirely consistent with theoretical predictions. In general, bargainers' behavior is better explained by a bounded rationality model similar to "fictitious play".

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Ching Chyi & Ferguson, Michael J., 2010. "To reveal or not to reveal? Strategic disclosure of private information in negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 380-390, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:207:y:2010:i:1:p:380-390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(10)00312-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    2. Shirish D. Chikte & Sudhakar D. Deshmukh, 1987. "The Role of External Search in Bilateral Bargaining," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 198-205, April.
    3. Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 1976. "On the Concept of the Value of Information in Competitive Situations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(7), pages 739-747, March.
    4. Bolton, Gary E, 1991. "A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-1136, December.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, December.
    6. Camerer, Colin & Loewenstein, George & Weber, Martin, 1989. "The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1232-1254, October.
    7. Chatterjee, Kalyan & Lee, Ching Chyi, 1998. "Bargaining and Search with Incomplete Information about Outside Options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 203-237, February.
    8. Ching Chyi Lee, 1994. "Bargaining and Search with Recall: A Two-Period Model with Complete Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 1100-1109, 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. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    2. Gallice, Andrea, 2017. "An approximate solution to rent-seeking contests with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 673-684.
    3. Zhao, Ming & Dong, Ciwei & Cheng, T.C.E., 2018. "Quality disclosure strategies for small business enterprises in a competitive marketplace," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 218-229.
    4. Imane Haddar & Brahim Raouyane & Mostafa Bellafkih, 2020. "Service Broker-Based Architecture Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Service Level Agreement," Computer and Information Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manel Baucells & Steven A. Lippman, 2004. "Bargaining with Search as an Outside Option: The Impact of the Buyer's Future Availability," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 235-249, December.
    2. Rami Zwick & Ching Chyi Lee, 1999. "Bargaining and Search: An Experimental Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 463-487, November.
    3. Fiona Scott Morton & Jorge Silva-Risso & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2011. "What matters in a price negotiation: Evidence from the U.S. auto retailing industry," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 365-402, December.
    4. Galbiati, Marco & Soramäki, Kimmo, 2011. "An agent-based model of payment systems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 859-875, June.
    5. Laurent Lamy, 2013. "“Upping the ante”: how to design efficient auctions with entry?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 194-214, June.
    6. Ianni, A., 2002. "Reinforcement learning and the power law of practice: some analytical results," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 203, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    7. ,, 2011. "Manipulative auction design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    8. Benaïm, Michel & Hofbauer, Josef & Hopkins, Ed, 2009. "Learning in games with unstable equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1694-1709, July.
    9. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.
    10. William L. Cooper & Tito Homem-de-Mello & Anton J. Kleywegt, 2015. "Learning and Pricing with Models That Do Not Explicitly Incorporate Competition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 86-103, February.
    11. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    12. Ball, Richard, 2017. "Violations of monotonicity in evolutionary models with sample-based beliefs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 100-104.
    13. Tsakas, Elias & Voorneveld, Mark, 2009. "The target projection dynamic," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 708-719, November.
    14. Sandholm,W.H., 2003. "Excess payoff dynamics, potential dynamics, and stable games," Working papers 5, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    15. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    16. Anthony Ziegelmeyer & Frédéric Koessler & Kene Boun My & Laurent Denant-Boèmont, 2008. "Road Traffic Congestion and Public Information: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 42(1), pages 43-82, January.
    17. DeJong, D.V. & Blume, A. & Neumann, G., 1998. "Learning in Sender-Receiver Games," Other publications TiSEM 4a8b4f46-f30b-4ad2-bb0c-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Alessandro Lizzeri & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2008. "Parental Guidance and Supervised Learning," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1161-1195.
    19. Ilya R. P. Cuypers & Youtha Cuypers & Xavier Martin, 2017. "When the target may know better: Effects of experience and information asymmetries on value from mergers and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 609-625, March.
    20. Mario Gilli, 2002. "Rational Learning in Imperfect Monitoring Games," Working Papers 46, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2002.

    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:eee:ejores:v:207:y:2010:i:1:p:380-390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.