Bargaining power and equilibrium consumption

We examine how a shift of bargaining power within households operating in a competitive market environment affects equilibrium allocation and welfare. If price effects are sufficiently small, then typically an individual benefits from an increase of bargaining power, necessarily to the detriment of others. If price effects are drastic, the welfare of all household members moves in the same direction when bargaining power shifts, at the expense (or for the benefit) of outside consumers. Typically a shift of bargaining power within a set of households also impacts upon other households. We show that each individual of a sociological group tends to benefit, if he can increase his bargaining power, but suffers if others in his group do the same.     

Demonstration of power: Experimental results on bilateral bargaining

We test the empirical effectiveness of two theoretical proposals to equilibrate bargaining power in bilateral bargaining. Our experimental design is based on the two-player versions of the multibidding game (Pérez-Castrillo & Wettstein, 2001) and the bid-and-propose game (Navarro & Perea, 2005). Both models build on the ultimatum game and balance parties’ bargaining power by auctioning the role of the proposer in the first stage. We find that proposers learn how to send an acceptable proposal by trial and error, guided by responders’ rejections. The observed behavior stabilizes for the final experimental rounds and the payoff gap between the proposer and the responder seems to close down. However, the strategies chosen by subjects are remarkably different from the theoretical ones.     

Choosing an electoral rule: Values and self-interest in the lab

We study the choice of multi-person bargaining protocols in the context of politics. In politics, citizens are increasingly involved in the design of democratic rules, for instance via referendums. If they support the rule that best serves their self-interest, the outcome inevitably advantages the largest group. In this paper, we challenge this pessimistic view with an original lab experiment, in which 252 subjects participated. In the first stage, these subjects experience elections under plurality and approval voting. In the second stage, they decide which rule they want to use for extra elections. We find that egalitarian values that subjects hold outside of the lab shape their choice of electoral rule in the second stage when a rule led to a fairer distribution of payoffs compared to the other one in the first stage. The implication is that people have consistent ‘value-driven preferences’ for decision rules.     

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EXPERIMENTAL WAGE NEGOTIATIONS

We examine behavioral gender differences and gender pairing effects in a laboratory experiment with face‐to‐face alternating‐offers wage bargaining. Our results suggest that gender differences in bargaining behavior are role‐dependent. We find that women obtain worse bargaining outcomes than men when they take on the role of employees, but not when they act as employers. Differences in bargaining outcomes can be explained by the bargaining parties' initial offers and counteroffers. We do not find evidence for behavioral differences between men and women in the process of alternating offers after first offers and counteroffers are made.(JEL J16, C78, C91)     

How does language affect decision-making in social interactions and decision biases?

This paper investigates how communication in a particular language affects decision-making in social interactions and risk preferences. We test two competing hypotheses: the cognitive accessibility hypothesis, and the expectation-based hypothesis. The cognitive accessibility hypothesis argues that communication in a particular language will activate the underlying cultural frame and affect behavior. The expectation-based hypothesis argues that different languages will induce different expectations regarding the choices of others and affect behavior. We test these two hypotheses using an extensive range of behaviors in a set of incentivized experiments with bilingual subjects in Chinese and English. We find that the subjects are more prosocial in strategic interaction games (trust games) when the experiments are conducted in Chinese. However, no treatment effects are observed in the individual choice games on social preference. The results are more in line with the expectation-based hypothesis.     

Efficiency in Marriage

Economists usually assume that bargaining in marriage leads to efficient outcomes. The most convincing rationale for this assumption is the belief that efficient allocations are likely to emerge from repeated interactions in stationary environments, and that marriage provides such an environment. This paper argues that when a current decision affects future bargaining power, inefficient outcomes are plausible. If the spouses could make binding commitments–in effect, commitments to refrain from exploiting the future bargaining advantage–then the inefficiency would disappear. But spouses seldom can make binding commitments regarding allocation within marriage.To investigate the efficiency of bargaining within marriage when choices affect future bargaining power, we consider the location decisions of two-earner couples. Initial location decisions are transparent and analytically tractable examples of choices likely to affect future bargaining power, but the logic of our analysis applies to many other decisions. For example, decisions about education, fertility, and labor force participation are also potential sources of inefficiency.     

The contagion effects of repeated activation in social networks

Demonstrations, protests, riots, and shifts in public opinion respond to the coordinating potential of communication networks. Digital technologies have turned interpersonal networks into massive, pervasive structures that constantly pulsate with information. Here, we propose a model that aims to analyze the contagion dynamics that emerge in networks when repeated activation is allowed, that is, when actors can engage recurrently in a collective effort. We analyze how the structure of communication networks impacts on the ability to coordinate actors, and we identify the conditions under which large-scale coordination is more likely to emerge.     

CULTURAL DIVERSITY, DISCRIMINATION, AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

Does cultural diversity affect economic outcomes? We develop an experimental framework that complements ongoing research on this question. We vary the ethnic mix of bargaining sessions to study intercultural interactions among members of U.S. Hispanic and Navajo cultures. We control for demographic differences in our subject pools and elicit beliefs directly in order to differentiate between statistical discrimination and preference‐based discrimination. Hispanic and Navajo subjects behave differently, and their behavior is affected by the ethnic composition of the experimental session. Our experimental framework can shed light on economic behavior and outcomes in societies of mixed ethnicity, race, and religion. (JEL C78, C90, Z10)     

Reference dependent prices in bargaining: An experimental examination of precise first offers

Evidence from psychology and marketing suggests that those who make a “precise” first offer in bargaining get a better deal than those who make a “round” first offer. We report on a series of experiments designed to test for and improve our understanding of the “precise first offer” (PFO) effect in bargaining and whether it likely reflects rational optimizing or equilibrium behavior. Our experiment varies whether decisions are incentivized and whether the PFO effect can emerge as an equilibrium of a cheap-talk signaling game. We find evidence of a PFO effect when subjects read a vignette and make unincentivized individual decisions. When monetary incentives are added to the vignette, we still find the PFO effect, but it is not robust. In a bilateral bargaining situation with a cheap-talk equilibrium, we can not find the PFO effect, which is inconsistent with the equilibrium predictions. Moreover, the PFO effect reemerges in a setting in which initial offers are generated by a random device and thus provides a strong refutation of the signaling model. Our evidence suggests that optimizing and equilibrium accounts of the PFO effect are inadequate. Understanding initial offers as reference points, which subtly change perceptions about the kinds of acceptable counteroffers, provides a plausible account of a new finding on which prior explanations are silent: precise offers induce more precise counteroffers.     

Spousal resources and relationship quality in eight European countries

ABSTRACT

We relate relationship satisfaction and thoughts about leaving a romantic relationship to a couple’s relative and absolute resources and check for context-dependency of those associations. Our theoretical point of departure is that the more resources women have compared to their spouses, the higher their intra-household bargaining power to negotiate themselves out of unpleasant tasks, particularly in gender-egalitarian and very income equal and unequal societies. In traditional societies (which score low on the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)), the inflexible role of men within the household presumably prevents women from bargaining a better position, which in turn negatively affects relationship quality. Income equality (low GINI coefficient) may be a prerequisite for women’s bargaining position, where more inequality (mid-GINI) may be detrimental for it. Nevertheless, extreme income inequality (high GINI) may again be favorable for women’s relationship power. Using country fixed effects models on data from the Generations and Gender Surveys (GGS), we compare men and women who are in a couple (formed after 1995) for eight European countries. We find that absolute resources matter more than relative resources, at least for relationship satisfaction: Higher educated couples are more satisfied with their relationships, which could suggest lower stress levels in those couples (in more traditional contexts). Second, we observe GINI context-dependency of the association between relative education and relationship satisfaction for women and relative education and exit thoughts for men, although opposite to what we expected. Perhaps reference group theory or gender display theory can explain these unexpected results. Finally, we find that women have more break-up plans in societies with a lower score on GEM. This last result is consistent with the notion that bargaining only works in egalitarian contexts.     

Faire Formeln

The literature on fair division has experienced a renaissance recently. Novel mathematical procedures promising an envy-free, socially efficient solution to conflicts over nearly indivisible goods play a particularly prominent role. This article presents a comparative experimental evaluation of three procedures. We examine to what extent features of the subjects of the procedures influence the choice in favor of one of the three negotiation protocols and the results of the division. Our analysis of the behavior of 119 subjects shows that psychological factors only affect the procedural choice. Dominance-seeking individuals tend to opt for those procedures that promise a fairer outcome than the relatively crude divide-and-choose-mechanism. In contrast, the outcome of the bilateral negotiations is determined by the attributes of the procedures. The strong influence of psychological factors at the initial stage of the bargaining process nevertheless casts strong doubts on the practicability of the procedures, recommended by the normative strand of game-theoretic negotiation analysis. The further development of ”fair formulas” for the resolution of redistributive conflicts should not neglect that the warring parties have to agree with the philosophy of the proposed bargaining protocol.     

To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game

Prior research has largely failed to focus on how transgressors can promote trust when having made unfair offers in bargaining. I investigated in the context of receiving an unfair offer in a dictator game when financial compensations and when apologies are most effective in motivating trust behavior by the violated party. I hypothesized that when losses were allocated, the violated party would be motivated to show more trust behavior towards the transgressor when a financial compensation (resulting again in equal final outcomes) relative to an apology was delivered, whereas when gains were allocated, apologies would be more effective in promoting trust behavior than a financial compensation. Results from a laboratory study indeed supported this prediction as such demonstrating the importance of how allocation decisions are framed (i.e., loss or gain) in testing the effectiveness of trust repair strategies (financial compensations vs. apologies).     

Longitudinal assessment of social attention in preterm and term infants: Its relation to social communication and language outcome

Preterm birth has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of social communication and language problems. Recently, we found that preterm infants showed atypical patterns of social attention compared with term infants. However, it is still unknown how social attention develops and whether the individual differences are associated with developmental outcomes for social communication and language in preterm infants. The social attention of preterm and term infants at 6, 12, and 18 months was investigated using two types of social attention tasks (human-geometric preference task and gaze-following task). The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory adapted for Japanese were measured at 18 months. We found that compared with term infants, preterm infants spent less time looking toward dynamic human images and followed another's gaze directions less frequently through 6, 12, and 18 months. Moreover, hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that less preference for dynamic human images and gaze-following abilities was associated with high M-CHAT and low language scores in preterm and term infants, respectively. These findings suggest that birth status affects development of social attention through 18 months and individual differences in social attention reflect differences in social communication and language outcomes.     

Walking the talk in multiparty bargaining: An experimental investigation

We study the framing effects of communication on payoffs in multiparty bargaining. Communication has been shown to be more truthful and revealing than predicted in equilibrium. Because talk is preference-revealing, it may effectively frame bargaining around a logic of fairness or competition, moving parties on a path toward or away from equal-division agreements. These endogenous framing effects may outweigh any overall social utility effects due to the mere presence of communication. In two studies, we find that non-binding talk about fairness within a three-party, complete-information game leads toward off-equilibrium, equal division payoffs, while non-binding talk focusing on Competitive Reasoning moves parties away from equal divisions. Our two studies allow us to demonstrate that manipulated pre-game talk and spontaneous within-game dialogue lead to the same results.     

Collective consumption models with restricted bargaining weights: an empirical assessment based on experimental data

We use experimental data to analyze consumption decisions by groups of individuals who have to reach a consensus on spending a joint budget. Our experiment involves dyads (i.e. two-member groups) who have to compose consumption bundles consisting of three commodities (wine, orange juice and M&Ms). We focus on the collective consumption model to describe group behavior. This model represents group decisions as Pareto optimal outcomes of a within-group bargaining process, with rational group members who are each characterized by individual bargaining weights. We also consider specifications of the collective model that restrict the variation of these bargaining weights. A distinguishing feature of our study is that we use revealed preference testing tools to assess the goodness-of-fit and discriminatory power of alternative specifications of the collective model. Our experimental results suggest that the most appropriate model specification allows for a limited variation of the bargaining weights.     

ENDOGENOUS DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT: THEORY AND EXTENSIONS

This article develops a general equilibrium model of conflict to characterize the implications of endogenous destruction for bargaining and fighting. Specifically, we consider the scenario where two contending parties engage in bargaining to avoid fighting when there are direct costs (e.g., arms buildups) and indirect costs (e.g., destruction to consumable resources) of conflict. Without imposing specific functional form restrictions on conflict, production, and destruction technologies, we show their interactions in determining an optimal decision between fighting and bargaining. We find that, under the shadow of conflict, bargaining is costly as the contending parties always allocate more resources to arming for guarding settlement through bargaining than in the event of fighting. In contrast to conventional thinking that bargaining is Pareto superior over fighting, we show conditions under which fighting dominates bargaining as the Nash equilibrium choice. The positive analysis may help explain the general causes of fighting, without resorting to the assumption of incomplete information or misperceptions. (JEL D74, H56, C7)     

Multilateral bargaining with subjective claims under majority vs. unanimity rule: An experiment

We experimentally investigate the effects of subjective claims in a multilateral bargaining game. Claims are induced by having subjects ‘produce’ the surplus to be divided by earning points in a quiz task. We use a Baron–Ferejohn framework. Our main treatment variable is the majority required to pass a proposal. Under unanimity rule, all proposals and agreements constitute convex combinations of the equal split and a division that is proportional to points earned in the productive task. Contrary to our predictions, this pattern largely persists under majority rule. In sharp contrast to prior experiments in which an exogenous surplus is divided using majority rule, few subjects attempt to build minimum winning coalitions in the presence of claims from production.     

Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict

We report experimental results from a dynamic real-time bargaining experiment. Players earn flows of income from the assets they possess at any point in the bargaining process, while they incur costs which are proportional to the size of the conflict between players’ current claims. We find that most bargaining interactions are characterised by small but non-zero amounts of contention, which arises from the process of tacitly coordinating claims, including from negotiating turn-taking approaches. Interactions with large losses from contention occur in a sizeable minority of interactions. There are significant individual differences in outcomes across participants. We do not find systematic gender effects, but do find that the locus of control of participants predicts bargaining outcomes.     

The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains

Outcome editing refers to a set of mental rules that people apply when deciding whether to evaluate multiple outcomes jointly or separately, which subsequently affects choice. In a large-scale online survey (n = 2062) we investigate whether individuals use the same outcome editing rules for financial outcomes (e.g., a lottery win) and social outcomes (e.g., a party with friends). We also test the role of numeric ability in explaining outcome editing. Our results show that people’s preferences for combining or separating events depend on whether those events are in the financial or the social domain. Specifically, individuals were more likely to segregate social outcomes than monetary outcomes, except for when all outcomes were negative. Moreover, numeric ability was associated with preferences for outcome editing in the financial domain but not in the social domain. Our findings extend the understanding of the arithmetic operations underlying outcome editing and suggest that people rely more on calculations when making choices involving multiple financial outcomes and more on feelings when making choices involving social outcomes.     

The chilling effect of optimism: The case of final-offer arbitration

This article examines the incentive effects of final-offer arbitration (FOA) when disputants have optimistic (i.e., biased) beliefs about the arbitrator's settlement preferences. Optimism is shown to increase the divergence in Nash equilibrium final offers, and the divergence is largest under naïve, rather than sophisticated, optimism. Therefore, though FOA rules were instituted to lessen the “chilling” effect of arbitration, FOA interacts with optimism to worsen the chilling effect. Data from controlled laboratory experiments confirm that optimism leads to more divergent final bargaining positions and higher dispute rates. These results highlight the role that de-biasing expectations can play in improving bargaining outcomes.