IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05240606.html

How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Noemí Navarro

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Róbert F. Veszteg

    (Waseda University [Tokyo, Japan])

Abstract

This paper investigates the robustness of equal-split outcomes in unstructured bargaining environments, expanding on classic two-person settings to include payoff transfers and multi-party bargaining. Drawing from experimental data, we find that equal splits persist as a focal solution in two-person bargaining with payoff transfers, even when some potential efficiency gains are left unexploited, likely due to limitations in participants' cognitive and strategic sophistication. In three-person settings (without payoff transfers), while agreements align closely with equality, they tend to do so only as long as efficiency and stability criteria are met. Our results suggest that bargaining parties prioritize equality when efficient solutions are complicated to find, but prioritize efficiency when efficient solutions are easily accessible. Also, in multilateral bargaining, coalitional stability becomes a primary concern, whereas it remains a softer constraint in simpler, bilateral negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Noemí Navarro & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2025. "How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory," Post-Print hal-05240606, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05240606
    DOI: 10.1007/s10888-025-09694-5
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05240606v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05240606v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10888-025-09694-5?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Dutta, Bhaskar & Ray, Debraj, 1989. "A Concept of Egalitarianism under Participation Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 615-635, May.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Dutta, Bhaskar & Ray, Debraj, 1991. "Constrained egalitarian allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 403-422, November.
    6. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Imai, Haruo, 1983. "Individual Monotonicity and Lexicographic Maxmin Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 389-401, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. William Thomson (ed.), 2010. "Bargaining and the Theory of Cooperative Games: John Nash and Beyond," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13317, June.
    13. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2025. "On welfarism and scale invariance: What do bargainers bargain about?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    16. Binmore, K & Shaked, A & Sutton, J, 1985. "Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1178-1180, December.
    17. Ken Binmore & Avner Shared & John Sutton, 1989. "An Outside Option Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(4), pages 753-770.
    18. Roth, Alvin E. & Malouf, Michael W. K. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1981. "Sociological versus strategic factors in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 153-177, June.
    19. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Roth, Alvin E. & Malouf, Michael W. K., 1982. "Scale changes and shared information in bargaining: An experimental study," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 157-177, September.
    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. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2025. "On welfarism and scale invariance: What do bargainers bargain about?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    3. Duffy, John & Lebeau, Lucie & Puzzello, Daniela, 2025. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Leng, Ailin, 2023. "A Rubinstein bargaining experiment in continuous time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 115-131.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Anna Conte & Werner Güth & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Strategic ambiguity and risk in alternating pie-sharing experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 233-260, June.
    11. Yoshio Kamijo, 2023. "Fixation of inequality and emergence of the equal split norm: Approach from behavioral bargaining theory," Working Papers 2209, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, revised Jun 2023.
    12. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 144-165.
    16. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Poulsen, Anders U. & Roos, Michael W.M., 2017. "Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 687-699.
    19. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    20. 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..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-05240606. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.