We present an experimental approach to study the micro-dynamics of coalition formation in an unrestricted bargaining environment. Specifically, we investigate a fundamental feature of sequential coalition bargaining models: expectations about future bargaining behavior will influence current bargaining outcomes. To do so, we test the hypothesis that coalition bargaining may lead to inefficient outcomes as agents are unable to effectively commit to preliminary agreements during the bargaining process. We conjecture that communication plays an important role in establishing such commitments. We then experimentally manipulate the communication channels and show that restrictions undermine trust and lead to decreased efficiency.
Arkes, H.R., L.T. Herren, and A.M. Isen.2000. The role of potential loss in the influence of affect on risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes42:191-93.
2.
Arunachalam, V., and W.N. Dilla.1992. Computer-mediated communication and structured interaction in transfer pricing negotiation. Journal of Information Systems6:149-70.
3.
Aumann, R.1976. Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics4:1236-39.
4.
Aumann, R.1995. Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality . Games and Economic Behavior8:6-19.
5.
Axelrod, R.1970. Conflict of interest. Chicago: Markham.
6.
Baltes, B.B., M. Dickson, M.P. Sherman, C.C. Bauer, and J.S. LaGanke.2002. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes87 (1): 156-79.
7.
Baron, D.P.1989. A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions. American Journal of Political Science33:1048-84.
8.
Baron, D.1993. Government Formation and Endogenous Parties. American Political Science Review87: 34-47.
9.
Baron, D.P., and D. Diermeier.2001. Elections, governments, and parliaments in proportional representation systems. Quarterly Journal of Economics August: 933-67.
10.
Baron, D.P., D. Diermeier, and P. Fong.2007. Policy dynamics and inefficiency in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation. Research Paper 1960, Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
11.
Baron, D.P., and J.A. Ferejohn.1989. Bargaining in legislatures. The American Political Science Review83 (4): 1181-1206.
12.
Baron, J.1995. Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making8:71-83.
13.
Carlson, J.R., and R.W. Zmud.1999. Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal42 (2): 153-70.
14.
Carnevale, P.J., D.J. Pruitt, and S. Seilheimer.1981. Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40:111-20.
15.
Croson, R.T.1999. Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation and Gaming30:23-37.
16.
Daft, R.L., and R. Lengel.1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science32:554-71.
17.
Derthick, M.A.2002. Up in smoke: From legislation to litigation in tobacco politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press .
18.
Diermeier, D.2006. Coalition government. In Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, ed. B. Weingast and D. Wittman.New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Diermeier, D. and S. Gailmard.2006. Self-Interest, Inequality, and Entitlement in Majoritarian Decision-Making. Quarterly Journal of Political Science1(4): 327-350.
20.
Diermeier, D., and A. Merlo.2000. Government turnover in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Economic Theory94:46-79.
21.
Diermeier, D., H. Eraslan, and A. Merlo.2003. A structural model of government formation . Econometrica71 (1): 27-70.
22.
Diermeier, D., and R.B. Myerson.1994. Bargaining, Veto Power, and Legislative Committees. CMSEMS working paper No. 1089. Northwestern University.
23.
Diermeier, D., and R.B. Myerson.1999. Bicameralism and its consequences for the internal organization of legislatures. American Economic Review89 (5): 1182-96.
24.
Eraslan, H., and A. Merlo.2002. Majority rule in a stochastic model of bargaining. Journal of Economic Theory10:31-48.
25.
Frechette, G., J.H. Kagel, and M. Morelli.2005. Behavioral identification in coalition bargaining: An experimental analysis of demand bargaining and alternating offers. Econometrica73 (6): 1893-1937.
26.
Fulk, J.1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal36 (5): 921-50.
27.
Kahai, S.S., and R.B. Cooper.1999. The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems16 (1): 165-88.
28.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky.1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica47 (2): 263-91.
29.
Kiesler, S., J. Siegel, and T.W. McGuire.1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist39:1123-34.
30.
King, D.C., and J.C. Glidewell.1980. Dyadic bargaining outcomes under individualistic and competitive orientations. Human Relations33 (11): 781-803.
31.
Laver, M., and N. Schofield.1990. Multi-party government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
Lewis, S., and W. Fry.1977. Effects of visual access and orientation on discovery of integrative bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance20 (1): 75-92.
33.
Lim, L.H., and I. Benbasat.1993. A theoretical perspective of negotiation support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems9 (3): 27-44.
34.
Loyd, D.L., M.C. Kern, and L. Thompson.2005. Classroom research: Bridging the ivory divide. Academy of Management Learning & Education4 (1): 8-21.
35.
Madigan, D.1996. Social Services. Evanstan, IL: Kellogg Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.
36.
Mannix, E.A.1994. Will we meet again? The effects of power, distribution norms, and the scope of future interaction in small group negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management5:343-68.
37.
Mennecke, B.E., J.S. Valacich, and B.C. Wheeler.2000. The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation9 (6): 507-29.
38.
Morelli, M.1999. Demand Competition and Policy Compromise in Legislative Bargaining, American Political Science Review93(4): 809-820.
39.
Morley, I.E., and G.M. Stephenson .1969. Interpersonal and interparty exchange, a laboratory simulation of a negotiation at the plant level. British Journal of Psychology60: 543-45.
40.
---. 1970. Formality in experimental negotiations: A validation study . British Journal of Psychology61 (3): 383-84.
41.
Morris, M., J. Nadler, T. Kurtzberg, and L. Thompson.2002. Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics6 (1): 89-100.
42.
Morris, S., and H.S. Shin.2003. Global Games: Theory and Applications . In Advances in Economics and Econometrics (Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of the Econometric Society ), eds. M. Dewatripont, L. Hansen and S. Turnovsky. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Naquin, C.E., and G.D. Paulson.2003. Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology88 (1): 113-20.
44.
Overly, M.R.1999. E-policy. New York: Amacom.
45.
Pertschuk, M.2001. Smoke in their eyes: Lessons in movement leadership from the tobacco wars. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
46.
Poole, M.S., D.L. Shannon, and G. DeSanctis.1992. Communication media and negotiation processes. In Communication and negotiation, ed. L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Purdy, J.M., and P. Nye.2000. The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management11 (2): 162-87.
48.
Rangaswamy, A., and G. Shell.1997. Using computers to realize joint gains in negotiations: Toward an "electronic bargaining table." Management Science43 (8): 1147-63.
49.
Rubinstein, A.1982. The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under almost common knowledge. American Economic Review79:385-91.
50.
Rutter, D.1987. Communication by telephone. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
51.
Short, J.A.1974. The effect of medium communication on experimental negotiation . Human Relations27:225-34.
52.
Short, J.A., E. Williams, and B. Christie.1976. The social psychology of telecommunications . New York: John Wiley & Sons .
53.
Suh, K.S.1999. Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An examination of media-richness theory. Information & Management35:295-312.
54.
Swaab, R., M. Kern, D. Diermier, and V. Medvec. In press. Who says what to whom? Effects of communicator- and content awareness on coalition formation. Social Cognition .
55.
Swaab, R.I., V. Medvec, and D. Diermeier. n.d. Communication media and negotiations: Meta-analyses on processes and outcomes. Under review.
56.
Swaab, R.I., T. Postmes, P. Neijens, M.H. Kiers, and A.C.M. Dumay.2002. Multi-party negotiation support: The role of visualization's influence on the development of shared mental models . Journal of Management Information Systems19 (1): 129-50.
57.
Swaab, R.I., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. In press. Identity formation in multiparty negotiation . British Journal of Social Psychology.
58.
Valley, K.L., J. Moag, and M. Bazerman.1998. "A matter of trust": Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization34:211-38.
59.
Walther, J.1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23:3-43.
60.
Wichman, H.1970. Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a 2-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology16 (1): 114.
