IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/jms111/v4y2013i4p52-57.html

Forward Induction and Other-regarding Preferences Arising from an Outside Option: An Experimental Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Quazi Shahriar

Abstract

Based on forward induction, existing experimental studies have shown that an outside option, when offered to one of the two players who later participate in a battle-of-the-sexes game, facilitates coordination. However, the particular outside-option payoffs that these studies used may have led to certain kinds of other-regarding preferences which worked against the forward induction prediction. The current paper hypothesizes that an appropriately chosen outside option which controls for these preferences raises the predictive power of forward induction. The experimental results presented in the paper support the hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Quazi Shahriar, 2013. "Forward Induction and Other-regarding Preferences Arising from an Outside Option: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(4), pages 52-57, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:jms111:v:4:y:2013:i:4:p:52-57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/3629/2142
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/3629
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. , & ,, 2012. "Forward induction reasoning revisited," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(1), January.
    2. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2002. "Strong Belief and Forward Induction Reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 356-391, October.
    3. Cooper, Russell & Douglas V. DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Thomas W. Ross, 1993. "Forward Induction in the Battle-of-the-Sexes Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1303-1316, December.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    5. Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
    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. Andrea Martinangeli & Peter Martinsson & Amrish Patel, 2017. "Coordination via redistribution," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2017-07, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Chlaß, Nadine & Perea, Andrés, 2016. "How do people reason in dynamic games?," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145881, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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. Dufwenberg, Martin & Köhlin, Gunnar & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2016. "Thanks but no thanks: A new policy to reduce land conflict," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 31-50.
    2. Chlaß, Nadine & Perea, Andrés, 2016. "How do people reason in dynamic games?," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145881, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Burkhard C. Schipper & Hang Zhou, 2026. "Level-k thinking in the extensive form," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 149-189, February.
    4. Daniel Keniston & Bradley J. Larsen & Shengwu Li & J.J. Prescott & Bernardo S. Silveira & Chuan Yu, 2024. "Splitting The Difference In Incomplete‐Information Bargaining: Theory And Widespread Evidence From The Field," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(4), pages 1911-1939, November.
    5. Andreoni,J. & Castillo,M. & Petrie,R., 2000. "What do bargainers' preferences look like? : exploring a convex ultimatum game," Working papers 25, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    6. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    8. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    9. Yi, Kang-Oh, 2005. "Quantal-response equilibrium models of the ultimatum bargaining game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 324-348, May.
    10. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    11. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    12. 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.
    13. Klempt Charlotte & Pull Kerstin & Stadler Manfred, 2019. "Asymmetric Information in Simple Bargaining Games: An Experimental Study," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 29-51, February.
    14. Alejandro Francetich & Burkhard Schipper, 2025. "Rationalizable Screening and Disclosure under Unawareness," Working Papers 374, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    15. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    16. Koppel, Lina & Andersson, David & Johannesson, Magnus & Strømland, Eirik & Tinghög, Gustav, 2025. "Comprehension in economic games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    17. Duffy, John & Feltovich, Nick, 2002. "Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-27, April.
    18. López-Pérez, Raúl, 2006. "Emotions Enforce Fairness Norms (a Simple Model of Strong Reciprocity)," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2006/11, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    19. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    20. Stahl, Dale O. & Haruvy, Ernan, 2008. "Subgame perfection in ultimatum bargaining trees," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 292-307, May.

    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:jfr:jms111:v:4:y:2013:i:4:p:52-57. 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: Jenny Zhang (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jms.sciedupress.com .

    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.