Skip to main content
Log in

Time inconsistency and learning in bargaining games

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Game Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies an alternating-offers bargaining game between possibly time-inconsistent players. The time inconsistency is modeled by quasi-hyperbolic discounting and the “naive backwards induction” solution concept is used in order to obtain the results. Both naive agents who remain naive and those who learn about their own preferences are considered. Offers of the players who are naive or partially naive are never accepted by any type of player in either no learning or gradual learning cases. The game between a naive or partially naive player who never learns and a time-consistent agent ends in an immediate agreement if the time-consistent agent is the proposer. A one period delay occurs if the time-consistent agent is the responder. The more naive the player is, the higher the share received. In addition, two naive agents who never learn disagree perpetually. When naive and partially naive agents play against exponential or sophisticated agents and they are able to learn their types over time, there exists a critical date before which there is no agreement. Therefore, the existence of time-inconsistent players who can learn their types as they play the game can be a new explanation for delays in bargaining. The relationship among the degree of naivete, impatience level and bargaining delay is also characterized. Specifically, for sufficiently high discount factors, agreement is always delayed. On the other hand, if the naive agent has sufficiently firm initial beliefs (slow learning or high degree of naivete), agents agree immediately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainslie G (1992) Picoeconomics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Akin Z (2004) The role of time-inconsistent preferences in intertemporal investment decisions and bargaining

  • Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C (1995) Biased judgements of fairness in bargaining. Am Econ Rev 85(5):1337–1343

    Google Scholar 

  • Brocas I, Carrillo JD (2004) Biases in perceptions, beliefs and behavior. Discussion paper, University of Southern California

  • Camerer C, Lovallo D (1999) Overconfidence and excess entry: an experimental approach. Am Econ Rev 89(1):301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coles MG, Muthoo A (2003) Bargaining in a non-stationary environment. J Econ Theory 109(1):70–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellavigna S, Malmendier U (2003) Self-control in the market: evidence from the Health Club Industry. Mimeo

  • Hoelzl E, Rustichini A (2005) Overconfident: do you put your money on it. Econ J 115:305–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laibson D (1997a) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 62(2):443–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. Q J Econ 107:573–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers DG (1996) Social psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999a) Doing it now or later. Am Econ Rev 89(1):103–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999b) Incentives for procrastinators. Q J Econ 114:769–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2001) Choice and procrastination. Q J Econ 116(1):121–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps ES, Pollak RA (1968) On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth. Rev Econ Stud 35(2):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto LS, Sobel J (2005) A model of positive self-image in subjective assessments. Am Econ Rev 95(5):1386–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1):97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarafidis Y (2004) Intertemporal price discrimination with time-inconsistent consumers. Working paper

  • Sarafidis Y (2006) Games with time-inconsistent players

  • Strotz RH (1956) Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Rev Econ Stud 23:165–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz M (2003) Bargaining without a common prior—an immediate agreement theorem. Econometrica 71(3):793–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz M (2004) Waiting to persuade. Q J Econ 119(1):223–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabojnik J (2004) A model of rational bias in self-assessments. Econ Theory 23(2):259–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zafer Akin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akin, Z. Time inconsistency and learning in bargaining games. Int J Game Theory 36, 275–299 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-007-0076-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-007-0076-3

Keywords

Navigation