Dynamic Unstructured Bargaining with Private Information: Theory, Experiment, and Outcome Prediction via Machine Learning

References

• Ames DR, Mason MF (2015) Tandem anchoring: Informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108(2):254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anbarci N, Feltovich N (2013) How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs? Experiment. Econom. 16(4):560–596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anbarci N, Feltovich N (2016) Market institutions, prices and distribution of surplus: A theoretical and experimental investigation. Working paper, Deakin Business School, Geelong VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Bernheim BD (2009) Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 77(5):1607–1636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ausubel LM, Deneckere RJ (1993) Efficient sequential bargaining. Rev. Econom. Stud. 60(2):435–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ausubel LM, Cramton P, Deneckere RJ (2002) Bargaining with incomplete information. Aumann R, Hart S, eds. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Vol. 3 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1897–1945.Google Scholar
• Bajari P, Nekipelov D, Ryan SP, Yang M (2015) Machine learning methods for demand estimation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):481–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardolet D, Fox CR, Lovallo D (2011) Corporate capital allocation: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management J. 32(13):1465–1483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N, Mehta J, Starmer C, Sugden R (2010) Explaining focal points: Cognitive hierarchy theory versus team reasoning. Econom. J. 120(543):40–79.Google Scholar
• Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR (2004) Parental allocations to children: New evidence on bequest differences among siblings. Rev. Econom. Statist. 86(2):637–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chernozhukov V (2013) Least squares after model selection in high-dimensional sparse models. Bernoulli 19(2):521–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chen D, Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2012) Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain. Econometrica 80(6):2369–2429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binmore K, Samuelson L (2006) The evolution of focal points. Games Econom. Behav. 55(1):21–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanco M, Engelmann D, Normann HT (2011) A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econom. Behav. 72(2):321–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE (1997) The rationality of splitting equally. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 32(3):365–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2006) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1906–1911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradley AP (1997) The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition 30(7):1145–1159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buelens M, Van Poucke D (2004) Determinants of a negotiator’s initial opening offer. J. Bus. Psych. 19(1):23–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cai H, Wang JT-Y (2006) Overcommunication in strategic information transmission games. Games Econom. Behav. 56(1):7–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Johnson E, Rymon T, Sen S (1993) Cognition and framing in sequential bargaining for gains and losses. Binmore K, Kirman A, Tani P, eds. Frontiers of Game Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 27–47.Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Human Resources 50(2):317–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chertkoff JM, Conley M (1967) Opening offer and frequency of concession as bargaining strategies. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 7(2, Part 1):181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chmura T, Kube S, Pitz T, Puppe C (2005) Testing (beliefs about) social preferences: Evidence from an experimental coordination game. Econom. Lett. 88(2):214–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramton PC (1984) Bargaining with incomplete information: An infinite-horizon model with two-sided uncertainty. Rev. Econom. Stud. 51(4):579–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford VP (2003) Lying for strategic advantage: Rational and boundedly rational misrepresentation of intentions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(1):133–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Boles T, Murnighan JK (2003) Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 51(2):143–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuzick J (1985) A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Statist. Medicine 4(4):543–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daniel TE, Seale DA, Rapoport A (1998) Strategic play and adaptive learning in the sealed-bid bargaining mechanism. J. Math. Psych. 42(2):133–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bruyn A, Bolton GE (2008) Estimating the influence of fairness on bargaining behavior. Management Sci. 54(10):1774–1791.Link, Google Scholar
• Durante R, Putterman L, Weele J (2014) Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: An experimental study. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(4):1059–1086.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dzyabura D, Hauser JR (2011) Active machine learning for consideration heuristics. Marketing Sci. 30(5):801–819.Link, Google Scholar
• Einav L, Levin J (2014) Economics in the age of big data. Science 346(6210):1243089.Crossref, Google Scholar
• El Harbi S, Bekir I, Grolleau G, Sutan A (2015) Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia. J. Econom. Psych. 47(April):77–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Embrey M, Hyndman KB, Riedl A (2014) Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study. Working paper, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Strobel M (2004) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(4):857–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Strobel M (2006) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Reply. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1918–1923.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fanning J (2016) Reputational bargaining and deadlines. Econometrica 84(3):1131–1179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Naef M, Schmidt KM (2006) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1912–1917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forsythe R, Kennan J, Sopher B (1991) An experimental analysis of strikes in bargaining games with one-sided private information. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(1):253–278.Google Scholar
• Friedman D, Oprea R (2012) A continuous dilemma. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):337–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuchs W, Skrzypacz A (2013) Bargaining with deadlines and private information. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 5(4):219–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Levine D, Tirole J (1985) Infinite-horizon models of bargaining with one-sided incomplete information. Roth AE, ed. Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, Chap. 5 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 73–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Riedl A (2005) Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Management Sci. 51(2):249–263.Link, Google Scholar
• Gachter S, Riedl A (2006) Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims: Normative judgments and actual negotiations. Soc. Choice Welfare 27(3):571–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galeotti F, Montero M, Poulsen A (2015) Efficiency versus equality in bargaining. SSRN 2688599.Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81(4):657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rockenbach B, Serra-Garcia M (2013) Measuring lying aversion. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:293–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Grossman SJ, Perry M (1986) Sequential bargaining under asymmetric information. J. Econom. Theory 39(1):120–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gul F, Sonnenschein H (1988) On delay in bargaining with one-sided uncertainty. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 56(3):601–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W, Van Damme E (1998) Information, strategic behavior, and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: An experimental study. J. Math. Psych. 42(2):227–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W, Huck S, Ockenfels P (1996) Two-level ultimatum bargaining with incomplete information: An experimental study. Econom. J. 106(436):593–604.Google Scholar
• Haller H, Holden S (1990) A letter to the editor on wage bargaining. J. Econom. Theory 52(1):232–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143(1):29–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen CB (2007) Asymptotic properties of a robust variance matrix estimator for panel data when t is large. J. Econometrics 141(2):597–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargreaves Heap S, Rojo Arjona D, Sugden R (2014) How portable is level-0 behavior? A test of level-k theory in games with non-neutral frames. Econometrica 82(3):1133–1151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hebiri M, Lederer J (2013) How correlations influence lasso prediction. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 59(3):1846–1854.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herreiner DK, Puppe C (2004) Equitable allocations in experimental bargaining games: Inequality a version versus efficiency. Technical report, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
• Holmström B, Myerson RB (1983) Efficient and durable decision rules with incomplete information. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 51(6):1799–1819.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isoni A, Poulsen A, Sugden R, Tsutsui K (2013) Focal points in tacit bargaining problems: Experimental evidence. Eur. Econom. Rev. 59:167–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isoni A, Poulsen A, Sugden R, Tsutsui K (2014) Efficiency, equality and labelling: An experimental investigation of focal points in explicit bargaining. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(10):3256–3287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacquemet N, Zylbersztejn A (2014) What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis. Rev. Econom. Design 18(4):243–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janssen MCW (2001) Rationalizing focal points. Theory Decision 50(2):119–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janssen MCW (2006) On the strategic use of focal points in bargaining situations. J. Econom. Psych. 27(5):622–634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Camerer C, Sen S, Rymon T (2002) Detecting failures of backward induction: Monitoring information search in sequential bargaining. J. Econom. Theory 104(1):16–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagel JH, Wolfe KW (2001) Tests of fairness models based on equity considerations in a three-person ultimatum game. Experiment. Econom. 4(3):203–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagel JH, Kim C, Moser D (1996) Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games Econom. Behav. 13(1):100–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalai E, Smorodinsky M (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 43(3):513–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karagözoğlu E, Riedl A (2015) Performance information, production uncertainty, and subjective entitlements in bargaining. Management Sci. 61(11):2611–2626.Link, Google Scholar
• Kennan J (1986) The economics of strikes. Ashenfelter OC, Layard R, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 2, Chap. 19 (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam), 1091–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennan J, Wilson R (1990) Can strategic bargaining models explain collective bargaining data? Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(2):405–409.Google Scholar
• Kennan J, Wilson RB (1993) Bargaining with private information. J. Econom. Literature 31(1):45–104.Google Scholar
• Kotha R, Kim Y-C, Camerer C, Lovallo D (2015) Equality norms, incentives and reciprocity in scientific royalty contracts. Working paper, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Camerer C, Ledyard J, Rangel A (2009) Using neural measures of economic value to solve the public goods free-rider problem. Science 326(5952):596–599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kriss PH, Nagel R, Weber RA (2013) Implicit vs. explicit deception in ultimatum games with incomplete information. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:337–346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kristensen H, Gärling T (1997) The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 71(1):85–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kritikos A, Bolle F (2001) Distributional concerns: Equity-or efficiency-oriented? Econom. Lett. 73(3):333–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• López-Pérez R, Pintér Á, Kiss HJ (2015) Does payoff equity facilitate coordination? A test of Schelling’s conjecture. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 117(September):209–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luhan W, Poulsen A, Roos M (2017) Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence. Games Econom. Behav. 102(March):687–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason MF, Lee AJ, Wiley EA, Ames DR (2013) Precise offers are potent anchors: Conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 49(4):759–763.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menchik PL (1980) Primogeniture, equal sharing, and the U.S. distribution of wealth. Quart. J. Econom. 94(2):299–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitzkewitz M, Nagel R (1993) Experimental results on ultimatum games with incomplete information. Internat. J. Game Theory 22(2):171–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mullainathan S, Spiess J (2017) Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2):87–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myerson R (1979) Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47(1):61–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myerson RB (1984) Two-person bargaining problems with incomplete information. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 52(2):461–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash JF Jr (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 18(2):155–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nave G, Minxha J, Greenberg DM, Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Rentfrow J (2018) Musical preferences predict personality: Evidence from active listening and Facebook likes. Psych. Sci., DOI: 10.1177/0956797618761659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nydegger RV, Owen G (1974) Two-person bargaining: An experimental test of the Nash axioms. Internat. J. Game Theory 3(4):239–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ochs J, Roth AE (1989) An experimental study of sequential bargaining. Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(3):355–384.Google Scholar
• Oyeyemi GM, Ogunjobi EO, Folorunsho AI (2015) On performance of shrinkage methods—A Monte Carlo study. Internat. J. Statist. Appl. 5(2):72–76.Google Scholar
• Pruitt DG (2013) Negotiation Behavior (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Radner R, Schotter A (1989) The sealed-bid mechanism: An experimental study. J. Econom. Theory 48(1):179–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A, Fuller MA (1995) Bidding strategies in a bilateral monopoly with two-sided incomplete information. J. Math. Psych. 39(2):179–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A, Daniel TE, Seale DA (1998) Reinforcement-based adaptive learning in asymmetric two-person bargaining with incomplete information. Experiment. Econom. 1(3):221–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A, Erev I, Zwick R (1995) An experimental study of buyer-seller negotiation with one-sided incomplete information and time discounting. Management Sci. 41(3):377–394.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1985) Toward a focal point theory of bargaining. Roth AE, ed. Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 259–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Malouf MW (1979) Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psych. Rev. 86(6):574–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Murnighan JK (1982) The role of information in bargaining: An experimental study. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc.50(5):1123–1142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Malouf MW, Murnighan JK (1981) Sociological versus strategic factors in bargaining. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 2(2):153–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Murnighan JK, Schoumaker F (1988) The deadline effect in bargaining: Some experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(4):806–823.Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 50(1):97–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A (1985) A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 53(5):1151–1172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Simsek A, Yildiz M (2016) Durability, deadline, and election effects in bargaining. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Smith A, Bernheim BD, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2014) Neural activity reveals preferences without choices. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 6(2):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sontuoso A, Bhatia S (2017) A notion of prominence for strategic games. Technical report, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
• Srivastava J (2001) The role of inferences in sequential bargaining with one-sided incomplete information: Some experimental evidence. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 85(1):166–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ståhl I (1972) Bargaining theory. Ph.D. thesis, Economic Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics (EFI).Google Scholar
• Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 36(2):111–147.Google Scholar
• Thompson LL, Wang J, Gunia BC (2010) Negotiation. Annual Rev. Psych. 61:491–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R (2011) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso: A retrospective. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 73(3):273–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Valley K, Thompson L, Gibbons R, Bazerman MH (2002) How communication improves efficiency in bargaining games. Games Econom. Behav. 38(1):127–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van de Geer S, Lederer J, et al. (2013) The lasso, correlated design, and improved oracle inequalities. From Probability to Statistics and Back: High-Dimensional Models and Processes—A Festschrift in Honor of Jon A. Wellner (Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Beachwood, OH), 303–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Poucke D, Buelens M (2002) Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: Contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer. J. Econom. Psych. 23(1):67–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varian HR (2014) Big data: New tricks for econometrics. J. Econom. Perspect. 28(2):3–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang JT-Y, Spezio M, Camerer CF (2010) Pinocchio’s pupil: Using eyetracking and pupil dilation to understand truth telling and deception in sender–receiver games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(3):984–1007.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White SB, Neale MA (1994) The role of negotiator aspirations and settlement expectancies in bargaining outcomes. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 57(2):303–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White SB, Valley KL, Bazerman MH, Neale MA, Peck SR (1994) Alternative models of price behavior in dyadic negotiations: Market prices, reservation prices, and negotiator aspirations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 57(3):430–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yarkoni T, Westfall J (2017) Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 12(6):1100–1122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young HP (1993) An evolutionary model of bargaining. J. Econom. Theory 59(1):145–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young HP, Burke MA (2001) Competition and custom in economic contracts: A case study of Illinois agriculture. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3):559–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Youyou W, Kosinski M, Stillwell D (2015) Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(4):1036–1040.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yukl G (1974a) Effects of the opponent’s initial offer, concession magnitude and concession frequency on bargaining behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 30(3):323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yukl GA (1974b) Effects of situational variables and opponent concessions on a bargainer’s perception, aspirations, and concessions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 29(2):227–236.Crossref, Google Scholar