Between anchors and aspirations: a new family of bargaining solutions

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 23 - Trang 53-73 - 2019
Emin Karagözoğlu1,2, Kerim Keskin3, Elif Özcan-Tok4
1Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
2CESifo Munich, Munich, Germany
3Kadir Has University, İstanbul, Turkey
4Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Ankara, Turkey

Tóm tắt

We study the salience and power of reference points in determining the effective anchors and aspirations in bargaining problems. Along this line, we enrich the analysis of the standard bargaining model with two new parameters: the first parameter can be interpreted as the effectiveness (or salience) of the reference point in determining the anchor, whereas the second parameter can be interpreted as its effectiveness in shaping agents’ aspirations. Utilizing these parameters, we provide a unifying framework for the study of bargaining problems with a reference point. The two-parameter family of bargaining solutions we obtain encompasses some well-known solutions as special cases. We offer multiple characterizations for each individual member of this family as well as two characterizations for the whole solution family in bilateral bargaining problems.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Alós-Ferrer C, García-Segarra J, Ginés-Vilar M (2018) Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution. Econ Theory Bull 6:141–155 Anbarcı N (1995) Reference functions and balanced concessions in bargaining. Can J Econ 28:675–682 Anbarcı N, Boyd JH III (2011) Nash demand game and the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution. Games Econ Behav 71:14–22 Anbarcı N, Feltovich N (2013) How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs? Exp Econ 16:560–596 Anbarcı N, Feltovich N (2018) How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm. J Econ Behav Organ 145:320–334 Balakrishnan PV, Gómez JC, Vohra RV (2011) The tempered aspirations solution for bargaining problems with a reference point. Math Soc Sci 62:144–150 Bartling B, Schmidt KM (2015) Reference points, social norms, and fairness in contract renegotiation. J Eur Econ Assoc 13:98–129 Bazerman MH (1985) Norms of distributive justice in interest arbitration. Ind Labor Relat Rev 38:558–570 Bolton GE, Karagözoğlu E (2016) On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: the importance of credible claims. Games Econ Behav 99:164–179 Border KC, Segal U (1997) Preferences over solutions to the bargaining problem. Econometrica 65:1–18 Brito DL, Buoncristiani A, Intriligator MD (1977) A new approach to the Nash bargaining problem. Econometrica 45:1163–1172 Crusius J, van Horen F, Mussweiler T (2012) Why process matters: a social cognition perspective on economic behavior. J Econ Psychol 33:677–685 Feltovich N (2019) Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited? Working paper Fischer S, Güth W, Pull K (2007) Is there as-if bargaining? J Socio-Econ 36:546–560 Gächter S, Riedl A (2005) Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Manag Sci 51:249–263 Gächter S, Riedl A (2006) Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims. Soc Choice Welf 27:571–594 Gupta S, Livne ZA (1988) Resolving a conflict situation with a reference outcome: An axiomatic model. Management Science 34:1303–1314 Gupta S, Livne ZA (1989) Testing the emergence and effect of the reference outcome in an integrative bargaining situation. Mark Lett 1:103–112 Haake C-J, Qin C-Z (2018) On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem. Paderborn University, Center for International Economics, Working paper # 113 Herweg F, Schmidt KM (2013) Loss aversion and inefficient renegotiation. Rev Econ Stud 82:297–332 Hoffman E, Spitzer ML (1982) The Coase theorem: some experimental tests. J Law Econ 25:73–98 Holm H, Runnemark E (2014) Equal splits or reference prices—behavioral differences in focal point selection. Working paper, Lund University Irlenbusch B, Hennig-Schmidt H, Rilke MR, Walkowitz G (2017) Asymmetric outside options in ultimatum bargaining: a systematic analysis. Int J Game Theory 47:301–329 Kalai E (1977) Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: interpersonal utility comparisons. Econometrica 45:1623–1630 Kalai E, Smorodinsky M (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43:513–518 Karagözoğlu E, Riedl A (2015) Performance information, production uncertainty, and subjective entitlements in bargaining. Manag Sci 61:2611–2626 Karagözoğlu E, Kocher MG (2018) Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines. Exp Econ (forthcoming) Kristensen H, Gärling T (2000) Anchor points, reference points, and counteroffers in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 9:493–505 Miyagawa E (2002) Subgame-perfect implementation of bargaining solutions. Games Econ Behav 41:292–308 Moulin H (1984) Implementing the Kalai–Smorodinsky bargaining solution. J Econ Theory 33:32–45 Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162 Raiffa H (1953) Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Annals of Mathematical Studies, 28: 361–387. Princeton University Press, Princeton Roemer J (1986) The mismarriage of bargaining theory and distributive justice. Ethics 97:88–110 Rosenthal RW (1976) An arbitration model for normal-form games. Math Oper Res 1:82–88 Sebenius JK (1992) Negotiation analysis: a characterization and review. Manag Sci 38:18–38 Thomson W (1981) A class of solutions to bargaining problems. J Econ Theory 25:431–441 Van Damme E (1986) The Nash bargaining solution is optimal. J Econ Theory 38:78–100 Yockey MD, Kruml SM (2009) Everything is relative, but relative to what? Defining and identifying reference points. J Bus Manag 15:95–109