IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Illustrated Examples of the Effects of Risk Preferences and Expectations on Bargaining Outcomes

Listed author(s):
  • David L. Dickinson

The author highlights bargaining examples that use expected utility theory. Bargainer payoffs in the event of a dispute are represented by a simple lottery. Expectations are assumed to affect a bargainer's subjective probabilities over lottery outcomes, and risk preferences affect the expected utility of a given lottery. Risk preferences and/or expectations are predicted to influence both negotiated outcomes and the likelihood of a bargaining impasse. The analysis shows that, ceteris paribus , risk aversion or pessimism, or both, will cause a bargainer to capture less of the pie in negotiations. Similarly, risk-loving and optimistic bargainers are more likely to experience impasse because of the disappearance of the contract zone. The results are intuitive, can be shown graphically and algebraically, and provide upper-level students with engaging examples that show the usefulness of expected utility theory.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal The Journal of Economic Education.

Volume (Year): 34 (2003)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
Pages: 169-180

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:34:y:2003:i:2:p:169-180
DOI: 10.1080/00220480309595210
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:34:y:2003:i:2:p:169-180. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.