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. 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.
    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. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2017. "Balance of power and the propensity of conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 168-184.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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..
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    9. 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).
    10. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2019. "Efficiency Versus Equality in Bargaining," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1941-1970.
    11. Duffy, John & Lebeau, Lucie & Puzzello, Daniela, 2025. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Roy Chen & Yan Chen & Yohanes E. Riyanto, 2021. "Best practices in replication: a case study of common information in coordination games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 2-30, March.
    17. Michael J Weir & Catherine M Ashcraft & Natallia Leuchanka Diessner & Bridie McGreavy & Emily Vogler & Todd Guilfoos, 2020. "Language effects on bargaining," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Joy Buchanan & Elif E. Demiral & Ümit Sağlam, 2025. "Effort transparency and fairness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 611-626, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 144-165.

    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.