首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization >Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses - Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game
【24h】

Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses - Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game

机译:分担损失时的议价能力并不重要-纳什议价博弈中均等分配的实验证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

While experimental research on social dilemmas focuses on the distribution of gains, we analyze social preferences in the case of losses. In this experimental study, the participants share a loss in a Nash bargaining game, but waiting time, instead of monetary losses, serves as an incentive. Further, we assume that the participants prefer less, rather than more, waiting time. Our experiment consists of four versions of the Nash bargaining game to allow for a comparison of four classical negotiation concepts (Nash, equal loss, equal gain, and Kalai-Smorodinsky) and an equal split of the overall waiting time. Our experimental evidence shows that an equal split better predicts the outcome of a Nash bargaining game involving losses than classical concepts do. Furthermore, the findings support that the participants resort to equal splits at the cost of their overall welfare. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:尽管关于社会困境的实验研究着重于收益的分配,但在损失的情况下,我们分析了社会偏好。在这项实验研究中,参与者在纳什的讨价还价游戏中分担了损失,但是等待时间而不是金钱的损失是激励。此外,我们假设参与者更喜欢等待而不是等待时间。我们的实验由四个版本的纳什讨价还价游戏组成,可以比较四个经典的谈判概念(纳什,等额亏损,等额收益和Kalai-Smorodinsky),并平均分配总等待时间。我们的实验证据表明,与经典概念相比,均等拆分更好地预测了涉及损失的纳什讨价还价博弈的结果。此外,研究结果支持参与者以均等的福利为代价采取均等的分配。 (C)2014 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号