IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/c/pka359.html

Emin Karagözoğlu
(Emin Karagozoglu)

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Deren Caglayan & Emin Karagözoglu & Kerim Keskin & Cagri Saglam, 2020. "Effort Comparisons for a Class of Four-Player Tournaments," CESifo Working Paper Series 8761, CESifo.

    Cited by:

    1. Kerim Keskin, 2026. "A game theory approach to football predictions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 241-261, January.
    2. Serhat Doğan & Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "Large Tullock contests," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 169-179, October.
    3. Fabian Dietz & Marco Sahm, 2024. "Fairness in Round-Robin Tournaments with Four Players and Endogenous Sequences," CESifo Working Paper Series 11145, CESifo.
    4. Lauber, Arne & March, Christoph & Sahm, Marco, 2022. "Optimal and fair prizing in sequential round-robin tournaments: Experimental evidence," BERG Working Paper Series 176, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.

  2. Emin Karagözoglu & Cagri Saglam & Agah R. Turan, 2020. "Tullock Brings Perseverance and Suspense to Tug-of-War," CESifo Working Paper Series 8103, CESifo.

    Cited by:

    1. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Sağlam, Çağrı & Turan, Agah R., 2021. "Perseverance and suspense in tug-of-war," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

  3. Emin Karagözoglu & Kerim Keskin & Cagri Saglam, 2020. "Race Meets Bargaining in Product Development," CESifo Working Paper Series 8109, CESifo.

    Cited by:

    1. Roland Kirstein, 2024. "Strategic delegation in Nash bargaining," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(2), pages 784-794, March.

  4. Zafer Akýn & Emin Karagözoðlu, 2015. "The Role of Goals and Feedback in Incentivizing Performance," IPEK Working Papers 1506, Ipek University, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2015.

    Cited by:

    1. Dalmia, Prateik & Filiz-Ozbay, Emel, 2021. "Your success is my motivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 49-85.
    2. Koch, Alexander K. & Nafziger, Julia, 2020. "Motivational goal bracketing: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    4. Jonas Pilgaard Kaiser & Alexander K. Koch & Julia Nafziger, 2024. "Does goal revision undermine self-regulation through goals? An experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 604-636, July.
    5. James Fan & Joaquín Gómez‐Miñambres & Samuel Smithers, 2020. "Make it too difficult, and I'll give up; let me succeed, and I'll excel: The interaction between assigned and personal goals," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 964-975, September.
    6. Hoffmann, Christin & Thommes, Kirsten, 2020. "Can digital feedback increase employee performance and energy efficiency in firms? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 49-65.

  5. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.

    Cited by:

    1. Federica Alberti & Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2018. "Concession Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 2017-2039, October.
    2. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    3. Florian Lindner & Julia Rose, 2016. "No need for more time: Intertemporal allocation decisions under time pressure," Working Papers 2016-24, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. 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. Gerards, R. & Muysken, J. & Welters, R.A.M.H.M., 2010. "Active labor market policy by a profit maximizing firm," Research Memorandum 042, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    Cited by:

    1. Michael Funke & Yu-Fu Chen, 2010. "Global warming and extreme events: Rethinking the timing and intensity of environment policy," Quantitative Macroeconomics Working Papers 21007b, Hamburg University, Department of Economics.
    2. Cörvers, Frank & Reinold, Julia & Chakkar, Saena & Bolzonella, Francesco & Ronda, Vera, 2021. "Literature review labour migration," ROA Technical Report 005, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).

  7. Emin Karagözoglu & Arno Riedl, 2010. "Information, Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," CESifo Working Paper Series 3133, CESifo.

    Cited by:

    1. Mitesh Kataria & Natalia Montinari, 2012. "Risk, Entitlements and Fairness Bias: Explaining Preferences for Redistribution in Multi-person Setting," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-061, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Anita Gantner & Kristian Horn & Rudolf Kerschbamer, 2013. "Fair Division in Unanimity Bargaining with Subjective Claims," Working Papers 2013-31, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    3. Paetzel, Fabian & Sausgruber, Rupert & Traub, Stefan, 2014. "Social Preferences and Voting on Reform: An Experimental Study," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 172, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Joy Buchanan & Elif E. Demiral & Ümit Sağlam, 2025. "Effort transparency and fairness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 611-626, March.
    5. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," MPRA Paper 72700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Anita Gantner & Rudolf Kerschbamer, 2013. "Fairness and Efficiency in a Subjective Claims Problem," Working Papers 2013-30, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

  8. Itai Ashlagi & Emin Karagozoglu & Bettina Klaus, 2008. "A Noncooperative Support for Equal Division in Estate Division Problems," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-069, Harvard Business School.

    Cited by:

    1. Karagozoglu, E., 2010. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    2. Mariotti, Marco & Wen, Quan, 2021. "A noncooperative foundation of the competitive divisions for bads," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    3. Soo-Haeng Cho & Christopher S. Tang, 2014. "Technical Note---Capacity Allocation Under Retail Competition: Uniform and Competitive Allocations," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 72-80, February.
    4. Esat Cetemen & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "Implementing equal division with an ultimatum threat," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 223-236, August.
    5. Anita Gantner & Kristian Horn & Rudolf Kerschbamer, 2013. "Fair Division in Unanimity Bargaining with Subjective Claims," Working Papers 2013-31, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 495-508, October.
    7. Zak, F., 2026. "Estate division problem: In search of a fair mechanism," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 70(1), pages 12-46.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "(In)efficiency and equitability of equilibrium outcomes in a family of bargaining games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 175-193, March.
    9. Urs Fischbacher & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Ulrike Stefani, 2017. "Non-additivity and the Salience of Marginal Productivities: Experimental Evidence on Distributive Fairness," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 587-610, October.
    10. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    11. Doudou Gong & Genjiu Xu & Xuanzhu Jin & Loyimee Gogoi, 2022. "A sequential partition method for non-cooperative games of bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(2), pages 359-379, July.
    12. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2025. "Using ultimatum power as a leverage in resolving a bargaining conflict," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2013. "A minimally altruistic refinement of Nash equilibrium," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 422-430.
    14. Ashlagi, Itai & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Klaus, Bettina, 2012. "A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 228-233.
    15. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2020. "Rewarding moderate behavior in a dynamic Nash Demand Game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 639-650, June.

  9. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "Distributive concerns in the bankruptcy problem with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    Cited by:

    1. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogeneous estate," Research Memorandum 031, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    2. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.

  10. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogeneous estate," Research Memorandum 031, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    Cited by:

    1. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Luttens, Roland I. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2015. "Fairness in bankruptcy situations: an experimental study," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 17/2015, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    2. Boonen, Tim J. & Koster, Maurice, 2025. "Axiomatic risk sharing and capital allocation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 133-143.
    3. Koster, Maurice & Boonen, Tim J., 2019. "Constrained stochastic cost allocation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-30.
    4. Boonen, Tim J., 2019. "Equilibrium recoveries in insurance markets with limited liability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 38-45.
    5. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.
    6. Doudou Gong & Genjiu Xu & Xuanzhu Jin & Loyimee Gogoi, 2022. "A sequential partition method for non-cooperative games of bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(2), pages 359-379, July.
    7. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "Distributive concerns in the bankruptcy problem with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. J. Arin & V. Feltkamp & M. Montero, 2015. "A bargaining procedure leading to the serial rule in games with veto players," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 41-66, June.
    9. Büyükboyacı, Mürüvvet & Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kıbrıs, Arzu & Kıbrıs, Özgür, 2019. "An experimental study of the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 607-629.
    10. Schumacher, Johannes M., 2021. "Ex-ante estate division under strong Pareto efficiency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 10-24.

  11. Flesch, J. & Karagozoglu, E. & Perea ý Monsuwé, A., 2007. "Optimal search for a moving target with the option to wait," Research Memorandum 051, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    Cited by:

    1. Benoit Duvocelle & J'anos Flesch & Hui Min Shi & Dries Vermeulen, 2020. "Search for a moving target in a competitive environment," Papers 2008.09653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    2. Benoit Duvocelle & J'anos Flesch & Mathias Staudigl & Dries Vermeulen, 2020. "A competitive search game with a moving target," Papers 2008.12032, arXiv.org.

Articles

  1. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.

    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Peikun & Li, Jianbiao & Pan, Jingjing & Zhu, Chengkang, 2025. "Expectations matter in bottom-line setting: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).

  2. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    2. Thomas Eichner & Marco Runkel, 2025. "Morality-Induced Leakage and Decentralized Environmental Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 11698, CESifo.
    3. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.
    4. Eichner, Thomas & Runkel, Marco, 2025. "Morality-induced leakage and decentralized environmental policy," VfS Annual Conference 2025 (Cologne): Revival of Industrial Policy 325421, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Mario Diego Emanuele Giordano & Monica Milasi, 2026. "A Quasi-Optimization Problem for a Family of Functions," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 208(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2025. "Using ultimatum power as a leverage in resolving a bargaining conflict," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-12, December.

  3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "(In)efficiency and equitability of equilibrium outcomes in a family of bargaining games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 175-193, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2025. "Using ultimatum power as a leverage in resolving a bargaining conflict," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2025. "Nash’s demand game and resource-allocation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, June.

  4. Serhat Doğan & Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Hüseyin Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "Titans that Clash and a State that Buffers," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(2-3), pages 210-234, February.

    Cited by:

    1. Serhat Doğan & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "Analyzing strategic behavior in a dynamic model of bargaining and war," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 233-257, December.

  5. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.

    Cited by:

    1. Valerio Capraro & Roberto Di Paolo & Veronica Pizziol, 2023. "Assessing Large Language Models' ability to predict how humans balance self-interest and the interest of others," Papers 2307.12776, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.

  6. Deren Çağlayan & Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2022. "Effort comparisons for a class of four-player tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 119-137, July.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  7. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    2. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.

  8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Costly Preparations in Bargaining," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(2), pages 532-557, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Houba, Harold & Li, Duozhe & Wen, Quan, 2022. "Bargaining with costly competition for the right to propose," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Sarah Auster & Nenad Kos & Salvatore Piccolo, 2021. "Optimal pricing, private information and search for an outside offer," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 758-777, December.
    3. Manuel A. Utset, 2023. "Time-Inconsistent Bargaining and Cross-Commitments," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Guerra, Alice & Lavie, Shay & Turrini, Enya, 2026. "Information-signaling in pre-trial bargaining: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    5. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Çağlayan, Deren, 2026. "Costly argumentation in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).

  9. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2021. "Race meets bargaining in product development," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 702-709, April.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  10. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Sağlam, Çağrı & Turan, Agah R., 2021. "Perseverance and suspense in tug-of-war," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Cited by:

    1. Shanglyu Deng & Qiang Fu & Junchi Li & Zenan Wu, 2026. "On Rent Dissipation in Dynamic Multi-battle Contests," Papers 2604.20192, arXiv.org.

  11. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2019. "Between anchors and aspirations: a new family of bargaining solutions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 53-73, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    2. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    3. L’Haridon, Olivier & Navarro, Noemí, 2025. "Nash solutions for bargaining problems with a reference point," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    4. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    5. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.

  12. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Brice Corgnet & Simon Gächter & Roberto Hernán-González, 2025. "The contractual dispute resolution game : Real-effort experiments on contract negotiation and arbitration," Post-Print hal-05053021, HAL.
    3. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    4. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    5. Carow, Johannes & Witzig, Niklas M., 2025. "Time pressure and strategic risk-taking in professional chess," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    6. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "Tempus fugit: The impact of time constraint on investor behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 67-81.
    7. Tom-Reiel Heggedal & Thomas McKay, 2024. "Discounting in finite-time bargaining experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 504-518, December.
    8. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    9. 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.
    10. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.
    11. Johannes Carow & Niklas M. Witzig, 2024. "Time Pressure and Strategic Risk-Taking in Professional Chess," Working Papers 2404, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Wei Zhang & Jingqi Wang & Reza Ahmadi & Sriram Dasu, 2021. "Timing the Price Agreement in High‐Tech Component Procurement," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4105-4120, November.
    13. Guerra, Alice & Lavie, Shay & Turrini, Enya, 2026. "Information-signaling in pre-trial bargaining: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    14. Burns, Nathaniel A. & Deck, Cary A. & Thomas, Charles J., 2023. "Experimental analysis of impatience in bilateral and multilateral negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2020. "Gender differences in performance under time constraint: Evidence from chess tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Baranski, Andrzej & Haas, Nicholas, 2023. "The timing of communication and retaliation in bargaining: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2019. "How Time Constraint Affects the Disposition Effect?," EconStor Preprints 194618, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Friesen, Lana & MacKenzie, Ian A. & Nguyen, Mai Phuong, 2023. "Initially contestable property rights and Coase: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

  13. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 495-508, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2020. "An implementation of the Nash bargaining solution by iterated strict dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "(In)efficiency and equitability of equilibrium outcomes in a family of bargaining games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 175-193, March.
    3. Bachi, Benjamin & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2024. "Very weakly dominant strategies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 75-78.
    4. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    5. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.
    6. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    7. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 741-751, April.
    8. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2020. "Rewarding moderate behavior in a dynamic Nash Demand Game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 639-650, June.
    9. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2025. "Nash’s demand game and resource-allocation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, June.

  14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2018. "Endogenous reference points in bargaining," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 88(2), pages 283-295, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    2. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    3. Dong Cheng & Yong Wu & Yuxiang Yuan & Faxin Cheng & Dianwei Chen, 2024. "Modeling the Maximum Perceived Utility Consensus Based on Prospect Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 951-975, October.
    4. Evgeny Kagan & Kyle Hyndman & Anyan Qi, 2026. "Startup Contracting and Entrepreneur-Investor Bargaining (Long Version)," Papers 2603.00706, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    5. Chunhao Li & Yuanhao Liu & Rongyuan Liu, 2025. "Standard and non-standard framing effects: a unified rational interpretation based on the new definition of frame," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. L’Haridon, Olivier & Navarro, Noemí, 2025. "Nash solutions for bargaining problems with a reference point," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    7. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.
    8. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    9. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    10. Kjell Arne Brekke & Alice Ciccone & Tom‐Reiel Heggedal & Leif Helland, 2024. "Reference points in sequential bargaining: theory and experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 126(2), pages 254-288, April.
    11. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

  15. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2018. "Time-varying fairness concerns, delay, and disagreement in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 115-128.

    Cited by:

    1. Kenney, Jeanna & Mangoubi, Tomer, 2025. "Bargaining on behalf of others: Incentives, beliefs, and gender gaps," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    2. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    3. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.
    4. Guha, Brishti, 2019. "Malice in pretrial negotiations," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 25-33.

  16. Doğan, Serhat & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2018. "Multi-player race," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 123-136.

    Cited by:

    1. Emin Karagözoglu & Kerim Keskin & Cagri Saglam, 2020. "Race Meets Bargaining in Product Development," CESifo Working Paper Series 8109, CESifo.
    2. Deren Caglayan & Emin Karagözoglu & Kerim Keskin & Cagri Saglam, 2020. "Effort Comparisons for a Class of Four-Player Tournaments," CESifo Working Paper Series 8761, CESifo.
    3. Peter-J. Jost, 2021. "“The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theoryâ€," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 27-74, January.
    4. Christian Ewerhart & Julian Teichgräber, 2019. "Multi-battle contests, finite automata, and the tug-of-war," ECON - Working Papers 318, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Emin Karagözoglu & Cagri Saglam & Agah R. Turan, 2020. "Tullock Brings Perseverance and Suspense to Tug-of-War," CESifo Working Paper Series 8103, CESifo.

  17. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Solomon Polachek & Kenneth Romano & Ozlem Tonguc, 2026. "Strategic Reasoning and Sensitivity to Stakes in the Dictator and Ultimatum Games: LLMs vs. Human Proposers," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 26110, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    2. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    3. Tontrup, Stephan & Arlen, Jennifer & Sprigman, Christopher Jon, 2025. "Behavioral Self-Management and the Strategic Shifting of Fairness Norms," EconStor Preprints 335552, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Giovanni Ponti & Marcello Sartarelli & Iryna Sikora & Zhukova Vita, 2018. "Gaining Experience as Principal or Agent. An Experimental Study," Working Papers. Serie AD 2018-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    5. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    6. Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Graham Loomes, 2018. "Incentive Magnitude Effects in Experimental Games: Bigger is not Necessarily Better," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
    7. Gert Jan Hofstede & Catholijn M. Jonker & Tim Verwaart & Neil Yorke-Smith, 2019. "The Lemon Car Game Across Cultures: Evidence of Relational Rationality," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 849-877, October.
    8. Annalena Oppel, 2023. "Communication matters: sensitivity in fairness evaluations across wealth inequality expressions and levels," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2023-86, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Astrid Kause & Oliver Vitouch & Judith Glück, 2018. "How selfish is a thirsty man? A pilot study on comparing sharing behavior with primary and secondary rewards," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, August.
    10. Hopp, Daniel, 2022. "High incentives without high cost - The role of (perceived) stake sizes in dictator games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 313-346, October.

  18. Zafer Akın & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2017. "The Role of Goals and Feedback in Incentivizing Performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 193-211, March.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  19. 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.

    Cited by:

    1. Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Daniel John Zizzo, 2020. "Responding to (un)reasonable requests by an authority," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 287-311, October.
    2. Shinoda, Taro & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2026. "The core and the equal division core in a three-person unstructured bargaining experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    3. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    4. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    5. 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.
    6. Federica Alberti & Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2018. "Concession Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 2017-2039, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Evgeny Kagan & Kyle Hyndman & Anyan Qi, 2026. "Startup Contracting and Entrepreneur-Investor Bargaining (Long Version)," Papers 2603.00706, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    9. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2018. "Time-varying fairness concerns, delay, and disagreement in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 115-128.
    10. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    11. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.
    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. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    15. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2025. "Moral preferences in ultimatum and impunity games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2019. "Between anchors and aspirations: a new family of bargaining solutions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 53-73, June.
    17. Lozano, Lina & Riedl, Arno & Rott, Christina, 2024. "The Impact of the Menstrual Cycle on Bargaining Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 16768, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Hyndman, Kyle, 2021. "Dissolving partnerships under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 702-720.
    19. John Duffy & Lucie Lebeau & Daniela Puzzello, 2021. "Bargaining Under Liquidity Constraints: Nash vs. Kalai in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2113, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    20. Jack Fanning & Andrew Kloosterman, 2022. "An experimental test of the Coase conjecture: Fairness in dynamic bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 138-165, March.
    21. Hyndman, Kyle, 2023. "Dynamic fairness in repeated bargaining with risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    22. 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.
    23. Duffy, John & Lebeau, Lucie & Puzzello, Daniela, 2025. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    24. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Çağlayan, Deren, 2026. "Costly argumentation in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    25. Baranski, Andrzej & Haas, Nicholas, 2023. "The timing of communication and retaliation in bargaining: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    26. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2018. "Endogenous reference points in bargaining," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 88(2), pages 283-295, October.
    27. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 313-346, October.

  20. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.

    Cited by:

    1. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.

  21. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrzej Baranski & Ernesto Reuben & Arno Riedl, 2025. "The Role of Fairness Ideals in Coordination Failure and Success," CESifo Working Paper Series 12195, CESifo.
    7. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    8. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2018. "Time-varying fairness concerns, delay, and disagreement in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 115-128.
    9. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    10. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2026. "Moral preferences in bargaining," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 429-452, February.
    11. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    12. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    13. Gantner, Anita & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fairness and efficiency in a subjective claims problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 21-36.
    14. Wolfgang Luhan & Anders Poulsen & Michael Roos, 2015. "Real time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-11, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    15. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2015. "Efficiency versus equality in real-time bargaining with communication," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-18, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    16. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," MPRA Paper 72700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Lozano, Lina & Riedl, Arno & Rott, Christina, 2024. "The Impact of the Menstrual Cycle on Bargaining Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 16768, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2015. "Efficiency versus Equality in Bargaining," Discussion Papers 2015-18, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Anita Gantner & Regine Oexl, 2023. "Respecting entitlements in legislative bargaining: A matter of preference or necessity?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 490-519, May.
    20. Hyndman, Kyle, 2021. "Dissolving partnerships under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 702-720.
    21. Konow, James & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Akai, Kenju, 2020. "Equity versus equality: Spectators, stakeholders and groups," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    22. Cavalan, Quentin & de Gardelle, Vincent & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe, 2022. "I did most of the work! Three sources of bias in bargaining with joint production," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    23. Regine Oexl & Anita Gantner, 2021. "Respecting Entitlements in Legislative Bargaining - A Matter of Preference or Necessity?," Working Papers 2021-25, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    24. Hyndman, Kyle, 2023. "Dynamic fairness in repeated bargaining with risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    25. Schmitz, Patrick W. & Kusterer, David J., 2018. "Government versus Private Ownership of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 13204, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    26. Duffy, John & Lebeau, Lucie & Puzzello, Daniela, 2025. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    27. Romain Espinosa & Bruno Deffains & Christian Thöni, 2020. "Debiasing preferences over redistribution: An experiment," Post-Print halshs-02614203, HAL.
    28. 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.
    29. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.

  22. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  23. Esat Cetemen & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "Implementing equal division with an ultimatum threat," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 223-236, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 495-508, October.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "(In)efficiency and equitability of equilibrium outcomes in a family of bargaining games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 175-193, March.
    3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    4. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.
    5. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    6. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2025. "Using ultimatum power as a leverage in resolving a bargaining conflict," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Gonzalez-Sanchez, Eric & Loyola, Gino, 2024. "Ultimatum bargaining with envy under incomplete information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2017. "Punishing greediness in divide-the-dollar games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(3), pages 341-351, March.
    9. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2020. "Rewarding moderate behavior in a dynamic Nash Demand Game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 639-650, June.

  24. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2013. "A minimally altruistic refinement of Nash equilibrium," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 422-430.

    Cited by:

    1. Takashi Kamihigashi & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2017. "Organizational Refinements of Nash Equilibrium," Discussion Paper Series DP2017-25, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    2. Bachi, Benjamin & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2024. "Very weakly dominant strategies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 75-78.
    3. Crettez, Bertrand & Nessah, Rabia, 2020. "On the existence of unilateral support equilibrium," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 41-47.

  25. Ashlagi, Itai & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Klaus, Bettina, 2012. "A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 228-233.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  26. János Flesch & Emin Karagözoǧlu & Andrés Perea, 2009. "Optimal search for a moving target with the option to wait," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(6), pages 526-539, September.
    See citations under working paper version above.

Chapters

    Sorry, no citations of chapters recorded.

Books

    Sorry, no citations of books recorded.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.