内源性冷却期

IF 2.3 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Mark van Oldeniel, Noemi Peter
{"title":"内源性冷却期","authors":"Mark van Oldeniel,&nbsp;Noemi Peter","doi":"10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We run an ultimatum game experiment where cool-off periods can emerge endogenously, that is, where proposers can <em>decide</em> to impose a waiting period on responders. Previous research focused on cool-off periods that were <em>exogenously imposed</em> by the researcher, but in real life people can make deliberate choices to impose such periods on others for strategic reasons. Since in our experiment cool-off periods can be imposed endogenously, we can answer several novel research questions. First, how willing are individuals to impose endogenous cool-off periods on others? Second, do offers change if cool-off is an option? Third, are endogenously imposed cool-offs effective? Finally, how does the possibility of imposing an endogenous cool-off period affect bargaining breakdowns and earnings? We find that 40% of proposers choose to impose a cool-off period on responders. Proposers make significantly lower offers when they can impose a cool-off period on responders. Endogenous cool-off periods are not effective in increasing the overall acceptance rate. The possibility to create an endogenous cool-off period does not have a significant effect on bargaining breakdowns or earnings overall. However, it lowers responder earnings significantly, as it allows proposers to exploit the timing choice to make a lower offer. Our results highlight that instead of helping to solve conflicts, the possibility to create cool-off periods hurts the less powerful party.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","volume":"238 ","pages":"Article 107237"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endogenous cool-off periods\",\"authors\":\"Mark van Oldeniel,&nbsp;Noemi Peter\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We run an ultimatum game experiment where cool-off periods can emerge endogenously, that is, where proposers can <em>decide</em> to impose a waiting period on responders. Previous research focused on cool-off periods that were <em>exogenously imposed</em> by the researcher, but in real life people can make deliberate choices to impose such periods on others for strategic reasons. Since in our experiment cool-off periods can be imposed endogenously, we can answer several novel research questions. First, how willing are individuals to impose endogenous cool-off periods on others? Second, do offers change if cool-off is an option? Third, are endogenously imposed cool-offs effective? Finally, how does the possibility of imposing an endogenous cool-off period affect bargaining breakdowns and earnings? We find that 40% of proposers choose to impose a cool-off period on responders. Proposers make significantly lower offers when they can impose a cool-off period on responders. Endogenous cool-off periods are not effective in increasing the overall acceptance rate. The possibility to create an endogenous cool-off period does not have a significant effect on bargaining breakdowns or earnings overall. However, it lowers responder earnings significantly, as it allows proposers to exploit the timing choice to make a lower offer. Our results highlight that instead of helping to solve conflicts, the possibility to create cool-off periods hurts the less powerful party.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\",\"volume\":\"238 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125003567\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125003567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们运行一个最后通牒博弈实验,其中冷静期可以内生地出现,也就是说,提议者可以决定对响应者施加等待期。以前的研究主要集中在研究人员强加的外部冷静期,但在现实生活中,人们可以出于战略原因故意选择将这种冷静期强加给他人。由于在我们的实验中,冷却期可以是内生性的,我们可以回答几个新的研究问题。首先,个人有多大意愿将内生冷静期强加于他人?其次,如果冷却是一种选择,游戏是否会改变?第三,内部强制冷却是否有效?最后,施加内生冷静期的可能性如何影响议价分解和收益?我们发现40%的提议者选择对回应者施加冷静期。当提议者可以给回应者施加一段冷静期时,他们的出价会明显降低。内生冷却期对提高整体接受率无效。创造内生冷静期的可能性对谈判破裂或总体收益没有显著影响。然而,它大大降低了应答者的收益,因为它允许提议者利用时间选择来提出更低的报价。我们的研究结果强调,创造冷静期的可能性不仅无助于解决冲突,反而会伤害权力较小的一方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endogenous cool-off periods
We run an ultimatum game experiment where cool-off periods can emerge endogenously, that is, where proposers can decide to impose a waiting period on responders. Previous research focused on cool-off periods that were exogenously imposed by the researcher, but in real life people can make deliberate choices to impose such periods on others for strategic reasons. Since in our experiment cool-off periods can be imposed endogenously, we can answer several novel research questions. First, how willing are individuals to impose endogenous cool-off periods on others? Second, do offers change if cool-off is an option? Third, are endogenously imposed cool-offs effective? Finally, how does the possibility of imposing an endogenous cool-off period affect bargaining breakdowns and earnings? We find that 40% of proposers choose to impose a cool-off period on responders. Proposers make significantly lower offers when they can impose a cool-off period on responders. Endogenous cool-off periods are not effective in increasing the overall acceptance rate. The possibility to create an endogenous cool-off period does not have a significant effect on bargaining breakdowns or earnings overall. However, it lowers responder earnings significantly, as it allows proposers to exploit the timing choice to make a lower offer. Our results highlight that instead of helping to solve conflicts, the possibility to create cool-off periods hurts the less powerful party.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization is devoted to theoretical and empirical research concerning economic decision, organization and behavior and to economic change in all its aspects. Its specific purposes are to foster an improved understanding of how human cognitive, computational and informational characteristics influence the working of economic organizations and market economies and how an economy structural features lead to various types of micro and macro behavior, to changing patterns of development and to institutional evolution. Research with these purposes that explore the interrelations of economics with other disciplines such as biology, psychology, law, anthropology, sociology and mathematics is particularly welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信