IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/40760.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Guilt causes equal or unequal division in alternating-offer bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Kohler, Stefan

Abstract

Parties in a bargaining situation may perceive guilt, a utility loss caused by receiving the larger share that is modeled in some social preferences. I extend Rubinstein (1982)'s solution of the open-ended alternating-offer bargaining problem for self-interested bargainers to a game with equally patient bargainers that exhibit a similar degree of guilt. The bargaining parties still reach agreement in the first period. If guilt is strong, they split the bargaining surplus equally. In contrast, if guilt is weak, the bargaining outcome is tilted away from the Rubinstein division towards a more unequal split. As both bargainers sensation of guilt diminishes, the bargaining outcome converges to the Rubinstein division.

Suggested Citation

  • Kohler, Stefan, 2012. "Guilt causes equal or unequal division in alternating-offer bargaining," MPRA Paper 40760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:40760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40760/1/MPRA_paper_40760.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Stefan Kohler & Karl H. Schlag, 2019. "Inequality Aversion Causes Equal Or Unequal Division In Alternating‐Offer Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 47-57, January.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    4. Kohler, Stefan, 2011. "Altruism and fairness in experimental decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 101-109.
    5. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    6. Maria Montero, 2008. "Altruism, Spite and Competition in Bargaining Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 125-151, September.
    7. Arnaud De Bruyn & Gary E. Bolton, 2008. "Estimating the Influence of Fairness on Bargaining Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(10), pages 1774-1791, October.
    8. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1984. "Involuntary Unemployment as a Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1351-1364, November.
    9. Kohler, Stefan, 2012. "Envy can promote more equal division in alternating-offer bargaining," MPRA Paper 40761, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Kohler & Karl H. Schlag, 2019. "Inequality Aversion Causes Equal Or Unequal Division In Alternating‐Offer Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 47-57, January.
    2. Stefan Kohler, 2012. "Incomplete Information about Social Preferences Explains Equal Division and Delay in Bargaining," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Kohler, Stefan, 2012. "Envy can promote more equal division in alternating-offer bargaining," MPRA Paper 40761, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Stefan Kohler & Karl H. Schlag, 2019. "Inequality Aversion Causes Equal Or Unequal Division In Alternating‐Offer Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 47-57, January.
    2. Kohler, Stefan, 2012. "Envy can promote more equal division in alternating-offer bargaining," MPRA Paper 40761, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Stefan Kohler, 2012. "Incomplete Information about Social Preferences Explains Equal Division and Delay in Bargaining," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Christian Ewerhart, 2006. "The Effect of Sunk Costs on the Outcome of Alternating-Offers Bargaining Between Inequity-Averse Agents," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 58(2), pages 184-203, April.
    5. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    6. Martin A. Leroch, 2015. "Rubinstein Bargaining with Other-Regarding Preferences," Working Papers 1509, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    7. Carmen Marchiori, 2010. "Concern for Fairness and Incentives in Water Negotiations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 553-571, April.
    8. Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden, 2014. "Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 125-151, June.
    9. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Ritzberger, Klaus, 2021. "Multi-lateral strategic bargaining without stationarity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. A. Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch & Cecilia Vergari, 2014. "Unions' Relative Concerns And Strikes In Wage Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 374-383, October.
    11. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif & Våge Knutsen, Magnus, 2022. "The power of outside options in the presence of obstinate types," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 454-468.
    12. 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.
    13. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.
    14. Charness, Gary & Corominas-Bosch, Margarida & Frechette, Guillaume R., 2007. "Bargaining and network structure: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 28-65, September.
    15. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    16. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    17. Ernan Haruvy & Elena Katok & Zhongwen Ma & Suresh Sethi, 2019. "Relationship-specific investment and hold-up problems in supply chains: theory and experiments," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 45-74, April.
    18. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. Hedegaard, Morten & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2021. "Distributional preferences explain individual behavior across games and time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 231-255.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    alternating offers; bargaining; bargaining power; behavioral economics; equity; fairness; guilt; inequality aversion; negotiation; social preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • 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:pra:mprapa:40760. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.