(In)Transparency of Information Acquisition: A Bargaining Experiment
We analyze how transparency affects information acquisition in a bargaining context, where proposers may chose to purchase information about the unknown outside option of their bargaining partner. Although information acquisition is excessive in all our scenarios we find that the bargaining outcome depends crucially on the transparency of the bargaining environment. In transparent games, when responders can observe whether proposers have acquired information, acceptance rates are higher. Accordingly, in transparent bargaining environments information is more valuable, both individually and socially.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
|Order Information:|| Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Anderson, Lisa R & Holt, Charles A, 1997. "Information Cascades in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 847-62, December.
- Harrison, Glenn W & McCabe, Kevin A, 1996. "Expectations and Fairness in a Simple Bargaining Experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 303-27.
- Güth, Werner & Schmidt, Carsten & Sutter, Matthias, 2001.
"Fairness in the mail and opportunism in the internet: A newspaper experiment on ultimatum bargaining,"
SFB 373 Discussion Papers
2001,42, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
- Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2003. "Fairness in the Mail and Opportunism in the Internet: A Newspaper Experiment on Ultimatum Bargaining," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(2), pages 243-265, 05.
- Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter & Werner Guth, 2003. "Fairness in the mail and opportunism in the internet - a newspaper experiment on ultimatum bargaining," Artefactual Field Experiments 00051, The Field Experiments Website.
- Dorothea K¸bler & Georg Weizs”cker, 2004. "Limited Depth of Reasoning and Failure of Cascade Formation in the Laboratory," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 425-441, 04.
- Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1982.
"Efficiency of Experimental Security Markets with Insider Information: An Application of Rational-Expectations Models,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(4), pages 663-98, August.
- Plott, Charles R. & Sunder, Shyam., . "Efficiency of Experimental Security Markets with Insider Information: An Application of Rational Expectations Models," Working Papers 331, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Werner Güth & Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Manfred Königstein & Martin Strobel, 2002. "Bid Functions in Auctions and Fair Division Games: Experimental Evidence," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(4), pages 461-484, November.
- Nöth, Markus & Weber, Martin, 2000.
"Information Aggregation with Random Ordering: Cascades and Overconfidence,"
Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications
00-34, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Markus Noth & Martin Weber, 2003. "Information Aggregation with Random Ordering: Cascades and Overconfidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(484), pages 166-189, January.
- Markus Noeth & Martin Weber, 2000. "Information Aggregation with Random Ordering: Cascades and Overconfidence," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1592, Econometric Society.
- Rotheli, Tobias F., 2001. "Acquisition of costly information: an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 193-208, October.
- Eisenberger, Roselies & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept for Risky and Ambiguous Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 223-33, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5817. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.