Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment

Experimental Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 35-51

  Bosman, Ronald ^a   Hennig Schmidt, Heike ^b   Van Winden, Frans ^c  

^a DE NEDERLANDSCHE BANK   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision rule; Experiment; Fairness; Groups; Video

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646487631     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-006-4310-9     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Andreoni, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2003). What do bargainers' preferences look like? Experiments with a convex ultimatum game. American Economic Review, 93, 672-685
2. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse. The role of self-serving bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109-126
3. Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H.T. Reis and Ch. M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 138-159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK.
4. Bolton, G. E., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95-121
5. Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or Less) consistent than individuals'?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63-81
6. Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup Conflict. Individual, Group, and Collective Interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 129-145
7. Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game. Are groups more rational players? Experimental Economics, 1, 101-108
8. Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more rational players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599-605
9. Bornstein, G., Budescu, D. V., Kugler, T., & Selten, R. (2005). Repeated price competition between individuals and between teams. Working paper. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.
10. Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional Hazard in a Power-to-Take Experiment. The Economic Journal, 112, 146-69
11. Bottom, W. P., Krishna, L., & Miller, G. J. (2002). Propagation of individual bias through group judgment. Error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 147-163
12. Brosig, J., Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (2003). The effect of communication media on cooperation. German Economic Review 4, 217-241
13. Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press
14. Cason, T. N., & Mui, V. -L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107, 1465-83
15. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. The American Economic Review, 95, 477-509
16. Corden, R. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective. Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative-Research, 1, 347-367
17. Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (2002). Barking up the wrong tree. Are small groups rational agents? Working Paper. University of Arizona
18. Dahl, G. B., & Ransom, M. R. (1999). Does where you stand depend on where you sit? Tithing donations and self-serving bias. American Economic Review, 89, 703-727
19. Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction. Theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125
20. van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., & van Winden, F. (2001). Incentive systems in a real effort experiment. European Economic Review, 45, 187-214
21. Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings and video. Cognitive and motivational components in preschool children's suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 129-146
22. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-68
23. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397-404
24. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
25. Goren, H., & Bornstein, G. (2000). The effects of intragroup communication on intergroup cooperation in the repeated intergroup prisoner's dilemma (IPD) game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 700-719
26. Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, Th. R. (2000). An experimental study of jury decision rules. American Political Science Review, 94, 407-423
27. Hennig-Schmidt, H. (1999). Bargaining in a video experiment. Determinants of boundedly rational behavior New York: Springer 1999
28. Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2002). The impact of fairness on decision making - An analysis of different video experiments. In F. Andersson, and H. Holm (eds.), Experimental Economics. Financial Markets. Auctions,?? and Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 185-210
29. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior. American Economic Review, 86, L653-60
30. Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Bias in Judgment. Comparing Individuals and Groups, Psychological Review, 103, 687-719
31. Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in Jurors vs. Bias in Juries. New Evidence from the SDS Perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70-86
32. Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2002). Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making process in gift-exchange experiments. Papers on Strategic Interaction. 27/2002. Max-Planck-Institute for Research into Economic Systems
33. Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The 'Decision Maker' matters. Individual versus team behavior in experimental 'Beauty-Contest' games. Economic Journal, 115, 200-223
34. Laughlin, P. R. (1999). Collective induction. Twelve postulates. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 80, 50-69
35. Levine, J. M. (1999). Transforming individuals into groups. Some hallmarks of the SDS approach to small group research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 21-27
36. Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. The Economic Journal, 109, F35-F45
37. Messick, D. M., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Ultimatum bargaining with a group. Underestimating the importance of the decision rule. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 87-101
38. Orbell, J. M., Dawes, R. M., & van der Kragt, A. J. C. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of personality and social psychology 5, 811-819
39. Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis. Theoretical background. In J.T.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: The British Psychological Society, 125-140
40. Raab, Ph., B. C. Schipper (2004). Cournot Competition between Teams. An experimental study. Bonn graduate school of economics. University of Bonn. Discussion Paper No. 13/2004.
41. Ratcliff, D. (2003). Video methods in qualitative research. In P. M. Camic J.E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley (eds.), Qualitative research in psychology, expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association 113-129
42. Robert, C., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 256-279
43. Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek B. (2005). Teams take the better risk. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (forthcoming)
44. Rutström E. E. L., & Williams, M. B. (2000). Entitlements and fairness. An experimental study of distributive preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 75-89
45. Stasser, G. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory. Models of group influence, Competitive model testing, and prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 3-20
46. Wildshut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, Ch. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind. A quantitative review of the interindividual-Intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin. 129. 5, 698-722