IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v25y2023i1p19-35.html

The Value of Response Time Information in Supply Chain Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Fadong Chen

    (School of Management, Neuromanagement Laboratory & The State Key Laboratory of Brain-machine Intelligence, Zhejiang University, 310058 Hangzhou, China)

  • Yingshuai Zhao

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

  • Ulrich Thonemann

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

Abstract

Problem definition : We analyzed the value of response time information in supply chain bargaining and how the transparency of response times affects bargaining dynamics and outcomes. Academic/practical relevance : The research on supply chain bargaining has focused on agents’ choices, whereas the value of process data, such as response times, has received limited attention. The process data underlying a decision can contain valuable information about the agents’ preference. Methodology : We conducted two laboratory experiments with multiround bargaining between a supplier and a retailer, where the supplier had private information about production costs. The retailer proposed wholesale prices to the supplier, and the supplier decided whether to reject or accept them. The experiments were composed of treatments with response time information (RT-Treatments) and those without response time information (noRT-Treatments). Suppliers’ response times were transparent to retailers in the RT-Treatment but were not transparent to those in the noRT-Treatment. Results : We found that suppliers’ response times could indicate their preference strengths regarding retailers’ proposals. In the RT-Treatment, retailers could use suppliers’ response times to their advantage. Compared with those in the noRT-Treatment, retailers in the RT-Treatment made lower initial proposals. The final wholesale prices in agreements were also lower in this treatment, resulting in higher average retailer and channel profits but lower supplier profits. Managerial implications : We demonstrated that response time information in supply chain bargaining revealed bargainers’ preferences and affected bargaining dynamics and outcomes. Bargainers could use their partners’ response times to improve their bargaining outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fadong Chen & Yingshuai Zhao & Ulrich Thonemann, 2023. "The Value of Response Time Information in Supply Chain Bargaining," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 19-35, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:1:p:19-35
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2022.1138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1138
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2022.1138?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2016. "Response time and click position: cheap indicators of preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 109-126, November.
    2. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    3. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    4. Ian Krajbich & Björn Bartling & Todd Hare & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    5. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    6. Ernan Haruvy & Elena Katok & Valery Pavlov, 2020. "Bargaining Process and Channel Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2845-2860, July.
    7. Drew Fudenberg & Philipp Strack & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2018. "Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3651-3684, December.
    8. Rick Antle & Peter Bogetoft, 2019. "Mix Stickiness Under Asymmetric Cost Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2787-2812, June.
    9. Fadong Chen & Ian Krajbich, 2018. "Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    11. Cary Frydman & Gideon Nave, 2017. "Extrapolative Beliefs in Perceptual and Economic Decisions: Evidence of a Common Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2340-2352, July.
    12. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    13. Ochs, Jack & Roth, Alvin E, 1989. "An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 355-384, June.
    14. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    16. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 344-375.
    17. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Deadline Effects In Sequential Bargaining — An Experimental Study," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(02), pages 117-135.
    18. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "The Deadline Effect in Bargaining: Some Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 806-823, September.
    19. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    20. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Ockenfels, Peter, 1996. "Two-Level Ultimatum Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 593-604, May.
    21. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    22. Tony Haitao Cui & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2007. "Fairness and Channel Coordination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1303-1314, August.
    23. Andrew M. Davis & Kyle Hyndman, 2019. "Multidimensional Bargaining and Inventory Risk in Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1286-1304, March.
    24. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    25. Dianna R. Amasino & Nicolette J. Sullivan & Rachel E. Kranton & Scott A. Huettel, 2019. "Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 383-392, April.
    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. Jessica Fong & Caio Waisman, 2025. "The Effects of Delay in Bargaining: Evidence from eBay," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(12), pages 9976-9997, December.
    2. Zhou, Xingjian & Feng, Yan & Chen, Hongming & Cai, Lihua & Bashkarev, Vladimir, 2025. "Pricing strategy of supply chain considering response time of extended warranty service," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).

    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. Fadong Chen & Gideon Nave & Lei Wang, 2025. "Calculated Punishment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 200(3), pages 715-731, September.
    2. Fadong Chen & Zhi Zhu & Qiang Shen & Ian Krajbich & Todd A. Hare, 2024. "Intrachoice Dynamics Shape Social Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(2), pages 1137-1153, February.
    3. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    4. David J. Cooper & Ian Krajbich & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "Choice-Process Data in Experimental Economics," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Yinghao Zhang & Peiwen Yu & Tianjun Feng, 2024. "Full Quantity or Full Credit? Choosing the Right Buyback Policy for a Behavioral Retailer," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 2212-2230, November.
    6. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo & Collin Raymond, 2019. "Preferences for Truth‐Telling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1115-1153, July.
    7. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Mago, Shakun D. & Pate, Jennifer & Razzolini, Laura, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 528-548.
    9. Corgnet, Brice & Gächter, Simon & Hernán-González, Roberto, 2025. "The contractual dispute resolution game: Real-effort experiments on contract negotiation and arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    10. Colin F. Camerer & Gideon Nave & Alec Smith, 2019. "Dynamic Unstructured Bargaining with Private Information: Theory, Experiment, and Outcome Prediction via Machine Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1867-1890, April.
    11. Andrew M. Davis & Kyle Hyndman, 2021. "Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1449-1467, November.
    12. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    13. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Bernd Irlenbusch & Rainer Michael Rilke & Gari Walkowitz, 2018. "Asymmetric outside options in ultimatum bargaining: a systematic analysis," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 301-329, March.
    14. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    15. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    16. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2015. "Surprising gifts: Theory and laboratory evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 163-208.
    17. Hyndman, Kyle, 2023. "Dynamic fairness in repeated bargaining with risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    19. Fischbacher, Urs & Hausfeld, Jan & Renerte, Baiba, 2022. "Strategic incentives undermine gaze as a signal of prosocial motives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-91.
    20. Axel Ockenfels & Dirk Sliwka & Peter Werner, 2015. "Bonus Payments and Reference Point Violations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1496-1513, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:1:p:19-35. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.