IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jbecon/v89y2019i4d10.1007_s11573-018-0917-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cash versus opportunity costs and revenues in bilateral bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Niklas Dreyer

    (Quanto AG and University of Osnabrück)

  • Robert M. Gillenkirch

    (University of Osnabrück)

Abstract

We extend previous experimental research on the relevance of cash versus opportunity costs for decision making to a bilateral bargaining setting in which we consider not only cash and opportunity costs, but also cash and opportunity revenues. In the negotiation between a seller and a buyer, a seller’s additional cash cost (cash revenue) reduces (increases) the welfare from trade, i.e., the sum of the partners’ payoffs in case they agree to cooperate, whereas an opportunity cost (revenue) represents a foregone profit (loss) outside the cooperation which does not affect the welfare from trade, but only the gain from trade, i.e., the increase in total payoffs of the two bargaining partners relative to the payoffs they can realize without cooperation. We employ theories of mental accounting and loss aversion to derive hypotheses that contrast bargaining outcomes with a standard-theoretic benchmark prediction implying that the bargaining partners will equally split the gain from trade irrespective of whether the additional item is a cash or opportunity cost or revenue. We hypothesize that prices are less sensitive to the additional item and thus deviate more strongly from the benchmark prediction when the item is an opportunity instead of a cash cost or revenue, because an opportunity cost or revenue is outside, whereas a cash cost or revenue is inside the relationship. We further hypothesize that prices are less sensitive to the item and thus deviate more strongly from the benchmark prediction when the item is an opportunity cost instead of an opportunity revenue, because the opportunity cost is in the gain domain, whereas the opportunity revenue is in the loss domain. Our experimental results support the former, but not the latter prediction. We conclude that the effect of cash versus opportunity costs or revenues on decision making critically depends on the strategic context in which they occur.

Suggested Citation

  • Niklas Dreyer & Robert M. Gillenkirch, 2019. "Cash versus opportunity costs and revenues in bilateral bargaining," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 357-383, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jbecon:v:89:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s11573-018-0917-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11573-018-0917-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11573-018-0917-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11573-018-0917-5?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
    ---><---

    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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Shane Frederick & Nathan Novemsky & Jing Wang & Ravi Dhar & Stephen Nowlis, 2009. "Opportunity Cost Neglect," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 553-561, December.
    5. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    6. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    7. James Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2010. "Saliency of outside options in the lost wallet game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 66-74, March.
    8. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1986. "Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 348-356, June.
    9. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    10. Thomson, William, 1987. "Monotonicity of bargaining solutions with respect to the disagreement point," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 50-58, June.
    11. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    12. Stephen A. Spiller, 2011. "Opportunity Cost Consideration," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(4), pages 595-610.
    13. Merrill M. Flood, 1958. "Some Experimental Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 5-26, October.
    14. Pamela Schmitt, 2004. "On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 49-73, February.
    15. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    16. Ken Binmore & Avner Shared & John Sutton, 1989. "An Outside Option Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 753-770.
    17. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    18. Neumann, Br & Friedman, La, 1978. "Opportunity Costs - Further Evidence Through An Experimental Replication," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 400-410.
    19. Binmore, Ken & Morgan, Peter & Snaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1991. "Do people exploit their bargaining power? An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 295-322, August.
    20. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    21. Chenhall, Robert & Morris, Deigan, 1991. "The effect of cognitive style and sponsorship bias on the treatment of opportunity costs in resource allocation decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 27-46.
    22. Friedman, La & Neumann, Br, 1980. "The Effects Of Opportunity Costs On Project Investment Decisions - A Replication And Extension," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 407-419.
    23. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    24. Hoskin, Re, 1983. "Opportunity Cost And Behavior," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 78-95.
    25. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "Measuring Beliefs in an Experimental Lost Wallet Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 163-182, February.
    26. Thompson, Leigh & Loewenstein, George, 1992. "Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 176-197, March.
    27. Shavit, Tal & Rosenboim, Mosi & Malul, Miki, 2011. "Opportunity costs in buying and short selling--Do they really matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 122-124, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    2. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Hodaka Morita & Maroš Servátka, 2018. "Investment in Outside Options as Opportunistic Behavior: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(2), pages 457-484, October.
    4. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    5. Bolton, Gary E. & Karagözoğlu, Emin, 2016. "On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: The importance of credible claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 164-179.
    6. Alex Lehr & Jana Vyrastekova & Agnes Akkerman & René Torenvlied, 2018. "Horizontal and vertical spillovers in wage bargaining: A theoretical framework and experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(1), pages 3-53, February.
    7. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How responsive are people to changes in their bargaining position? Earned bargaining power and the 50–50 norm," EcoMod2013 5855, EcoMod.
    8. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.
    9. Ashworth, Laurence & Darke, Peter R. & McShane, Lindsay & Vu, Tiffany, 2019. "The rules of exchange: The role of an exchange surplus in producing the endowment effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 11-24.
    10. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.
    11. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    12. 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.
    13. Heifetz, Aviad & Segev, Ella, 2004. "The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 117-134, October.
    14. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    15. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    16. Dufwenberg, Martin & Servátka, Maroš & Vadovič, Radovan, 2017. "Honesty and informal agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 269-285.
    17. 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.
    18. Lambert, Eve-Angéline & Peterle, Emmanuel & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2019. "Pretrial settlement and coercion: An experiment," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    20. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A prospect theory Nash bargaining solution and its stochastic stability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 692-711.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Opportunity costs; Opportunity revenues; Bilateral bargaining; Fairness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching 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:spr:jbecon:v:89:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s11573-018-0917-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.