2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2021.102415
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gender differences in bargaining with asymmetric information

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We can only speculate about the possible reasons underlying this gender eect. One possibility is that the strategic aspect of the game played a role, as suggested in other studies (Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007;Dreber and Johannesson, 2008;Malik et al, 2021). It is also possible that women reacted more to the intervention because they cared more about the social benets of reducing conicts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…We can only speculate about the possible reasons underlying this gender eect. One possibility is that the strategic aspect of the game played a role, as suggested in other studies (Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007;Dreber and Johannesson, 2008;Malik et al, 2021). It is also possible that women reacted more to the intervention because they cared more about the social benets of reducing conicts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The structure under which individuals make their choice and interact can affect the outcome and increase/decrease the group's welfare (Bolton and Ockenfels 2012;De Clippel et al 2014;Konow et al 2020;Maskin 1999). Economic theory has been concerned with rules design for some time already (e.g., the Nobel lecture of Hurwicz 2008), especially for two-person bargaining situations within economics environments (Chessa et al 2022;Malik et al 2021;Myerson 2008). By contrast, multi-person bargaining theory has produced comparatively less results although formal political scientists have stressed the importance of such situations early on (Baron and Ferejohn 1989;Ordeshook 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%