Asymmetric Information in Simple Bargaining Games: An Experimental Study

Bilateral bargaining situations are often characterized by informational asymmetries concerning the size of what is at stake: in some cases, the proposer is better informed, in others, it is the responder. We analyze the effects of both types of asymmetric information on proposer behavior in two different situations which allow for a variation of responder veto power: the ultimatum and the dictator game. We find that the extent to which proposers demand less in the ultimatum as compared to the dictator game is (marginally) smaller when the proposer is in the superior information position. Further we find informed proposers to exploit their informational advantage by offering an amount that does not reveal the true size of the pie, with proposers in the ultimatum game exhibiting this behavioral pattern to a larger extent than those in the dictator game. Uninformed proposers risk imposed rejection when they ask for more than potentially is at stake, and ask for a risk premium in dictator games. We concentrate on proposers, but also explore responder behavior: We find uninformed responders to enable proposers’ hiding behavior, and we find proposer intentionality not to play an important role for informed responders when they decide whether to accept or reject an offer by an (uninformed) proposer.     

DO WEALTH DIFFERENCES AFFECT FAIRNESS CONSIDERATIONS?*

The influence of relative wealth on fairness considerations is analyzed in an ultimatum game experiment in which participants receive large and widely unequal initial endowments. Subjects initially demonstrate a concern for fairness. With time however, behavior becomes at odds with both subgame perfection and fairness. Evidence of learning is detected for both proposers and receivers in the estimation of a structural reinforcement learning model. The estimation results suggest that, guided by foregone best responses and an acquired sense of deservingness, rich subjects become more selfish, whereas poor subjects, influenced only by their own experience, learn to tolerate this behavior.     

Bargaining under a deadline: evidence from the reverse ultimatum game

We study a “reverse” ultimatum game, in which proposers have multiple chances to offer responders a division of some fixed pie. The game ends if the responder accepts an offer, or if, following a rejection, the proposer decides not to make a better offer. The unique subgame perfect equilibrium gives the proposer the minimum possible payoff. Nevertheless, the experimental results are not too different from those of the standard ultimatum game, although proposers generally receive slightly less than half of the surplus.We use the reverse ultimatum game to study deadlines experimentally. With a deadline, the subgame perfect equilibrium prediction is that the proposer gets the entire surplus.Deadlines are used strategically to influence the outcome, and agreements are reached near the deadline. Strategic considerations are evident in the differences in observed behavior between the deadline and no deadline conditions, even though agreements are substantially less extreme than predicted by perfect equilibrium.     

Walrasian bargaining

Given any two-person economy, consider an alternating-offer bargaining game with complete information where the proposers offer prices, and the responders either choose the amount of trade at the offered prices or reject the offer. We provide conditions under which the outcomes of all subgame-perfect equilibria converge to the Walrasian equilibrium (the price and the allocation) as the discount rates approach 1. Therefore, price-taking behavior can be achieved with only two agents.     

The powerless yet relevant third: a three-player ultimatum/dictator game with earned funds and roles

We report the first experiment to pair a three-player ultimatum/dictator game with a real effort task. The inclusion of the real effort task shifts the standard for division from simple egalitarianism towards relative performance; even in treatments in which roles and funds are exogenous. Additionally, we find proposers overcompensate themselves relative to their effort, and this additional compensation comes at the expense of powerless (third) players. Individual characteristics predict the nature of a proposals. Lastly, we find that responders’ choice to accept is based on their own and the powerless third party’s compensation.     

Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis

This paper reports the findings of a meta-analysis of 37 papers with 75 results from ultimatum game experiments. We find that on average the proposer offers 40% of the pie to the responder. This share is smaller for larger pie sizes and larger when a strategy method is used or when subjects are inexperienced. On average 16% of the offers is rejected. The rejection rate is lower for larger pie sizes and for larger shares offered. Responders are less willing to accept an offer when the strategy method is employed. As the results come from different countries, meta-analysis provides an alternative way to investigate whether bargaining behavior in ultimatum games differs across countries. We find differences in behavior of responders (and not of proposers) across geographical regions. With one exception, these differences cannot be attributed to various cultural traits on which for instance the cultural classifications of Hofstede (1991) and Inglehart (2000) are based.     

Choosing Bargaining Partners—An Experimental Study on the Impact of Information About Income,Status and Gender

Ultimatum proposals and dictator donations are studied when proposers can choose the income and sex of the responder. Responder attributes generated strong effects in the selection decisions; subjects preferred to send proposals to low-income responders and female responders were much more popular than males. Hence, signals of income and sex appear to be important in deciding with whom to bargain. We also report from an experiment where both responders and proposers could select co-player based on socioeconomic status and gender. Both female responders and proposers were strongly preferred. A weaker tendency was that high status subjects were favored.JEL Classification: C90, C78, J7, D63     

On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games

This study examines fairness perceptions in ultimatum bargaining games with asymmetric payoffs, outside options, and different information states. Fairness perceptions were dependent on treatment conditions. Specifically, when proposers had higher chip values, dollar offers were lower than when responders had higher chip values. When responders had an outside option, offers were higher and were rejected less often than when proposers had an outside option. However, a given offer was rejected more often when responders had an outside option. Therefore, similar to the first mover advantage, the “advantaged” or “entitled” player received a higher monetary payoff than they would otherwise. When there was complete information about payoff amounts (payoff conversion rates and outside options), rejections occurred more often, and given offer amounts were rejected more often than when there was incomplete information. When there was incomplete information, offers were higher in the initial rounds than in the final rounds. These results suggest that proposers made offers strategically, making offers that would not be rejected, rather than out of a concern for fairness.     

Fairness, errors and the power of competition

In this paper, we investigate the effects of competition on bargained outcomes. We show that the neglect of either fairness concerns or decision errors will prevent a satisfactory understanding of how competition affects bargaining. We conducted experiments which demonstrate that introducing a small amount of competition to a bilateral ultimatum game – by adding just one competitor – induces large behavioral changes among responders and proposers, causing large changes in accepted offers. Models that assume that all people are self-interested and fully rational do not adequately explain these changes. We show that a model which combines heterogeneous fairness concerns with decision errors correctly predicts the comparative static effects of changes in competition. Moreover, the combined model is remarkably good at predicting the entire distribution of offers in many different competitive situations.     

Promises in group decision making

We assess in the laboratory the effect of promises on group decision-making. The gift-exchange game provides the testing ground for our experiment. When the game is played between groups, inter-group cooperation and reciprocity represent a condition for increasing total earnings as a measure of social efficiency. Our findings show that promises have positive effect on aggregate payoffs and that effect is reinforced when a group member is randomly selected as proposer to set forth an effort/transfer level that other group members can approve or reject. Promises and proposers elicit social conformity leading groups to exhibit more desirable social behavior.     

Between-game rule learning in dissimilar symmetric normal-form games

Rule learning posits that decision makers, rather than choosing over actions, choose over behavioral rules with different levels of sophistication. Rules are reinforced over time based on their historically observed payoffs in a given game. Past works on rule learning have shown that when playing a single game over a number of rounds, players can learn to form sophisticated beliefs about others. Here we are interested in learning that occurs between games where the set of actions is not directly comparable from one game to the next. We study a sequence of ten thrice-played dissimilar games. Using experimental data, we find that our rule learning model captures the ability of players to learn to reason across games. However, this learning appears different from within-game rule learning as previously documented. The main adjustment in sophistication occurs by switching from non-belief-based strategies to belief-based strategies. The sophistication of the beliefs themselves increases only slightly over time.     

Melioration learning in games with constant and frequency-dependent pay-offs

The paper explores the implications of melioration learning—an empirically significant variant of reinforcement learning—for game theory. We show that in games with invariable pay-offs melioration learning converges to Nash equilibria in a way similar to the replicator dynamics. Since melioration learning is known to deviate from optimizing behavior when an action’s rewards decrease with increasing relative frequency of that action, we also investigate an example of a game with frequency-dependent pay-offs. Interactive melioration learning is then still appropriately described by the replicator dynamics, but it indeed deviates from rational choice behavior in such a game.     

Learning in experimental games

Summary Experimental games typically involve subjects playing the same game a number of times. In the absence of perfect rationality by all players, the subjects may use the behavior of their opponents in early rounds to learn about the extent of irrationality in the population they face. This makes the problem of finding the Bayes-Nash equilibrium of the experimental game much more complicated than finding the game-theoretic solution to the ideal game without irrationality. We propose and implement a computationally intensive algorithm for finding the equilibria of complicated games with irrationality via the minimization of an appropriate multi-variate function. We propose two hypotheses about how agents learn when playing experimental games. The first posits that they tend to learn about each opponent as they play it repeatedly, but do not learn about the population parameters through their observations of random opponents (myopic learning). The second posits that both types of learning take place (sequential learning). We introduce a computationally intensive sequential procedure to decide on the informational value of conducting additional experiments. With the help of that procedure, we decided after 12 experiments that our original model of irrationality was unsatisfactory for the purpose of discriminating between our two hypotheses. We changed our models, allowing for two different types of irrationality, reanalyzed the old data, and conducted 7 more experiments. The new model successfully discriminated between our two hypotheses about learning. After only 7 more experiments, our approximately optimal stopping rule led us to stop sampling and accept the model where both types of learning occur.We acknowledge the financial support from NSF grant #SES9011828 to the California Institute of Technology. We also acknowledge the able research assistance of Mark Fey, Lynell Jackson and Jeffrey Prisbrey in setting up the experiments, recruiting subjects and running the experiments. We acknowledge the help of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and its staff members for giving us access to their Cray XMP/18, and subsequently their Cray YMP2E/116.     

Signaling without a common prior: Results on experimental equilibrium selection

The common prior assumption is pervasive in game-theoretic models with incomplete information. This paper investigates experimentally the importance of inducing a correct common prior in a two-person signaling game. Equilibrium selection arguments predict that different equilibria may be selected depending on whether the common prior is induced or not. Indeed, for a specific probability distribution of the sender?s type, the long-run behavior without an induced common prior is shown to be different from the long-run behavior when a common prior is induced, while for other distributions long-run behavior is similar under both regimes. We also present a learning model that allows players to learn about the other players? strategies and the prior distribution of the sender?s type. We show that this learning model accurately accounts for all main features of the data.     

Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study

We perform an experiment on a pure coordination game with uncertainty about the payoffs. Our game is closely related to models that have been used in many macroeconomic and financial applications to solve problems of equilibrium indeterminacy. In our experiment, each subject receives a noisy signal about the true payoffs. This game (inspired by the “global” games of Carlsson and van Damme, Econometrica, 61, 989–1018, 1993) has a unique strategy profile that survives the iterative deletion of strictly dominated strategies (thus a unique Nash equilibrium). The equilibrium outcome coincides, on average, with the risk-dominant equilibrium outcome of the underlying coordination game. In the baseline game, the behavior of the subjects converges to the theoretical prediction after enough experience has been gained. The data (and the comments) suggest that this behavior can be explained by learning. To test this hypothesis, we use a different game with incomplete information, related to a complete information game where learning and prior experiments suggest a different behavior. Indeed, in the second treatment, the behavior did not converge to equilibrium within 50 periods in some of the sessions. We also run both games under complete information. The results are sufficiently similar between complete and incomplete information to suggest that risk-dominance is also an important part of the explanation.      

An experimental study of information and mixed-strategy play in the three-person matching-pennies game

Summary. Recent experiments on mixed-strategy play in experimental games reject the hypothesis that subjects play a mixed strategy even when that strategy is the unique Nash equilibrium prediction. However, in a three-person matching-pennies game played with perfect monitoring and complete payoff information, we cannot reject the hypothesis that subjects play the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Given this support for mixed-strategy play, we then consider two qualitatively different learning theories (sophisticated Bayesian and naive Bayesian) which predict that the amount of information given to subjects will determine whether they can learn to play the predicted mixed strategies. We reject the hypothesis that subjects play the symmetric mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium when they do not have complete payoff information. This finding suggests that players did not use sophisticated Bayesian learning to reach the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Received: August 9, 1996; revised version: October 21, 1998     

Experimental study of repeated team-games

We report an experiment in which the Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) game was contrasted with a structurally identical (single-group) Prisoner's Dilemma (PD). The games were played repeatedly for 40 rounds. We found that subjects were initially more likely to cooperate in the IPD game than in the PD game. However, cooperation rates decreased as the game progressed and, as a result, the differences between the two games disappeared. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that subjects learn the structure of the game and adapt their behavior accordingly. Computer simulations based on a simple learning model by Roth and Erev (Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term, Games and Economic Behavior 8, 164–212, 1995) support this interpretation.     

学习型竞争性联盟的不稳定性分析

由竞争对手组建的竞争性联盟,已经发展成为一种重要的新型战略模式。关注竞争性联盟中伙伴的学习行为,通过构建动态模型,发现学习动机下竞争性联盟具有较强的不稳定性。为了进一步设计有利于识别和控制不稳定性风险的管理机制,建立了博弈模型并求解混合均衡,发现可以通过借助增加相互间关联资本数量,以及持续创造新知识的方式来缓解不稳定性。但前提是需要满足一定条件,即关联资本与新创造的知识效用总和,大于竞争性伙伴在剩余时间内可能获取的知识效用时,率先实现学习目标的企业才不会提早退出联盟,缓解策略才有效。     

Noncooperative foundations of the nucleolus in majority games

This paper studies coalition formation, payoff division and expected payoffs in a “divide the dollar by majority rule” game with random proposers. A power index is called self-confirming if it can be obtained as an equilibrium of the game using the index itself as probability vector. Unlike the Shapley value and other commonly used power indices, the nucleolus has this property. The proof uses a weak version of Kohlberg's [SIAM J. Appl. Math. 20 (1971) 62] balancedness result reinterpreting the balancing weights as probabilities in a mixed strategy equilibrium.     

学习型组织、学习型领导、学习力

21世纪是知识经济时代,在知识经济时代,成功只代表着过去,能力代表着今天,学习力代表着未来。个人要成为学习者,企业要成为学习型组织,国家要成为学习型社会。新世纪企业领导的主要任务是领导企业的员工更好的学习,提高企业的学习能力,学习型组织的领导者也有了新的角色定位,领导者是设计师、仆人和教师。员工素质和水平提高了,领导的水平更应该提高,提高的一个主要途径就是提升学习力。一个具有学习能力的人,就是一个不断走向成功的人。21世纪成功的关键是要进行有效的学习,即爱学、会学才会赢。每家企业都会有不同的“学习途径”,可谓条条道路通罗马。