Negotiation under possible third party settlement
The effect of possible third party settlement on negotiation behaviour is studied in an economic bargaining experiment. The bargaining phase is preceded by a production phase that allows for different fairness principles to guide the division of the total production value. The experimental results show that a possible third party settlement lowers the dispute costs by reducing the number of rounds of alternating offers. In the presence of a third party, negotiators make first offers that are more strongly related to their production, which reduces the number of rounds of bargaining. The production phase has an effect on the distributional property of the settlements. In negotiations where third party settlement is an option, the negotiation outcome shifts towards a more unequal outcome, more in line with each person's contribution.
|Date of creation:||15 Nov 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: NHH, Department of Economics, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway|
Phone: +47 55 959 277
Fax: 5595 9100
Web page: http://www.nhh.no/sam/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena, 1998. "Reinterpreting Arbitration's Narcotic Effect: An Experimental Study of Learning in Repeated Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-33, October.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2003.
"Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
03-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007.
"The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri D. Hole & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2005. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 1611, CESifo Group Munich.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2004.
"Dividing justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
04-044/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
- Charness, Gary B, 1998.
"Bargaining Efficiency And Screening: An Experimental Investigation,"
University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series
qt86r0x2tf, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Charness, Gary, 2000. "Bargaining efficiency and screening: an experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 285-304, July.
- Gary Charness, 1998. "Bargaining efficiency and screening: An experimental investigation," Economics Working Papers 284, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
- Konow, James, 1996.
"A positive theory of economic fairness,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:nhheco:2011_006. 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: (Dagny Hanne Kristiansen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.