IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iwqwdp/152017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games

Author

Listed:
  • Doll, Monika
  • Seebauer, Michael
  • Tonn, Maren

Abstract

We implement waiting time as a currency in an ultimatum game in an experimental laboratory study. Subjects had to split 60 minutes of waiting time. We analyze bargaining behavior in varying situations connected to waiting time as well as gain and loss framing. Different situations that follow waiting time have no influence on bargaining behavior. Regarding gain and loss framing, we do not find differences in proposers' behavior. Responders show less willingness to wait when the bargaining outcome is framed as a loss compared to being framed as a gain of time. Displaying less willingness to wait, responders show a higher propensity to risk a rejection of the proposers' offers.

Suggested Citation

  • Doll, Monika & Seebauer, Michael & Tonn, Maren, 2017. "Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 15/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iwqwdp:152017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/167685/1/896269523.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leclerc, France & Schmitt, Bernd H & Dube, Laurette, 1995. "Waiting Time and Decision Making: Is Time like Money?," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 110-119, June.
    2. Guillermo Baquero & Willem Smit & Luc Wathieu, 2013. "The generosity effect: Fairness in sharing gains and losses," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-13-08, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Charles Noussair & Jan Stoop, 2015. "Time as a medium of reward in three social preference experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 442-456, September.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    7. Antonides, G. & Verhoef, P.C., 2000. "Consumer Perception and Evaluation of Waiting Time," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-35-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Piyush Kumar & Manohar U. Kalwani & Maqbool Dada, 1997. "The Impact of Waiting Time Guarantees on Customers' Waiting Experiences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 295-314.
    9. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Festjens, Anouk & Bruyneel, Sabrina & Diecidue, Enrico & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2015. "Time-based versus money-based decision making under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 52-72.
    12. Eike B. Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2008. "Loss Aversion for time: An experimental investigation of time preferences," FEMM Working Papers 08027, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    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. Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Essays in asset pricing and auctions," Other publications TiSEM 879f7643-7123-4bc8-a5e7-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Breaban, Adriana & Noussair, Charles N. & Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Contests with money and time: Experimental evidence on overbidding in all-pay auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 391-405.

    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. 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.
    2. Breaban, Adriana & Noussair, Charles N. & Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Contests with money and time: Experimental evidence on overbidding in all-pay auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 391-405.
    3. Festjens, Anouk & Bruyneel, Sabrina & Diecidue, Enrico & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2015. "Time-based versus money-based decision making under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 52-72.
    4. Jouxtel, Justine, 2019. "Voluntary contributions of time: Time-based incentives in a linear public goods game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    5. Thomas Neumann & Sabrina Kierspel & Ivo Windrich & Roger Berger & Bodo Vogt, 2018. "How to Split Gains and Losses? Experimental Evidence of Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Essays in asset pricing and auctions," Other publications TiSEM 879f7643-7123-4bc8-a5e7-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Anastasia Danilov & Timo Vogelsang, 2016. "Time for helping," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 36-47, May.
    8. Krishnamurthy, Parthasarathy & Kumar, Piyush, 2002. "Self-Other Discrepancies in Waiting Time Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 207-226, March.
    9. Wichardt, Philipp C. & Schunk, Daniel & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Participation costs for responders can reduce rejection rates in ultimatum bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 33-35, April.
    10. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    11. Jason Shachat & Lijia Tan, 2015. "An Experimental Investigation of Auctions and Bargaining in Procurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1036-1051, May.
    12. Mamadou Gueye & Nicolas Quérou & Raphaël Soubeyran, 2018. "Does equity induce inefficiency? An experiment on coordination," Working Papers hal-02790603, HAL.
    13. Gueye, Mamadou & Quérou, Nicolas & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2020. "Social preferences and coordination: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 26-54.
    14. Ernst Fehr & Oliver Hart & Christian Zehnder, 2008. "Contracts as reference points � experimental evidence," IEW - Working Papers 393, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2013. "Reference dependent altruism in demand bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 127-140.
    16. Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin & Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2012. "Are entrepreneurs influenced by risk attitude, regulatory focus or both? An experiment on entrepreneurs' time allocation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 456-476.
    17. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga & Trond E. Olsen, 2017. "A trust game in loss domain," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 860-877, December.
    18. Ravetti, Chiara & Sarr, Mare & Munene, Daniel & Swanson, Tim, 2019. "Discrimination and favouritism among South African workers: Ethnic identity and union membership," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2011. "Ultimata bargaining: generosity without social motives," MPRA Paper 33613, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Neo, Wei Siong & Yu, Michael & Weber, Roberto A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2013. "The effects of time delay in reciprocity games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 20-35.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum Game; Waiting Time; Experimental Currency; Leaving the Laboratory; Framing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    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:zbw:iwqwdp:152017. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vierlde.html .

    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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vierlde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.