Deliberation during online bargaining reveals strategic information

IF 9.1 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1073/pnas.2410956122
Miruna Cotet, Wenjia Joyce Zhao, Ian Krajbich
{"title":"Deliberation during online bargaining reveals strategic information","authors":"Miruna Cotet, Wenjia Joyce Zhao, Ian Krajbich","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2410956122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A standard assumption in game theory is that decision-makers have preplanned strategies telling them what actions to take for every contingency. In contrast, nonstrategic decisions often involve an on-the-spot comparison process, with longer response times (RT) for choices between more similarly appealing options. If strategic decisions also exhibit these patterns, then RT might betray private information and alter game theory predictions. Here, we examined bargaining behavior to determine whether RT reveals private information in strategic settings. Using preexisting and experimental data from eBay, we show that both buyers and sellers take hours longer to accept bad offers and to reject good offers. We find nearly identical patterns in the two datasets, indicating a causal effect of offer size on RT. However, this relationship is half as strong for rejections as for acceptances, reducing the amount of useful private information revealed by the sellers. Counter to our predictions, buyers are discouraged by slow rejections—they are less likely to counteroffer to slow sellers. We also show that a drift-diffusion model (DDM), traditionally limited to decisions on the order of seconds, can account for decisions on the order of hours, sometimes days. The DDM reveals that more experienced sellers are less cautious and more inclined to accept offers. In summary, strategic decisions are inconsistent with preplanned strategies. This underscores the need for game theory to incorporate RT as a strategic variable and broadens the applicability of the DDM to slow decisions.","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2410956122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A standard assumption in game theory is that decision-makers have preplanned strategies telling them what actions to take for every contingency. In contrast, nonstrategic decisions often involve an on-the-spot comparison process, with longer response times (RT) for choices between more similarly appealing options. If strategic decisions also exhibit these patterns, then RT might betray private information and alter game theory predictions. Here, we examined bargaining behavior to determine whether RT reveals private information in strategic settings. Using preexisting and experimental data from eBay, we show that both buyers and sellers take hours longer to accept bad offers and to reject good offers. We find nearly identical patterns in the two datasets, indicating a causal effect of offer size on RT. However, this relationship is half as strong for rejections as for acceptances, reducing the amount of useful private information revealed by the sellers. Counter to our predictions, buyers are discouraged by slow rejections—they are less likely to counteroffer to slow sellers. We also show that a drift-diffusion model (DDM), traditionally limited to decisions on the order of seconds, can account for decisions on the order of hours, sometimes days. The DDM reveals that more experienced sellers are less cautious and more inclined to accept offers. In summary, strategic decisions are inconsistent with preplanned strategies. This underscores the need for game theory to incorporate RT as a strategic variable and broadens the applicability of the DDM to slow decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在网上讨价还价时的深思熟虑揭示了战略信息
博弈论的一个标准假设是,决策者有预先计划好的策略,告诉他们在每种意外情况下应该采取什么行动。相比之下,非战略性决策通常涉及现场比较过程,需要更长的响应时间(RT)才能在更相似的吸引人的选项之间做出选择。如果战略决策也表现出这些模式,那么RT可能会泄露私人信息并改变博弈论预测。在这里,我们研究了讨价还价行为,以确定RT是否在战略设置中揭示了私人信息。通过使用eBay已有的和实验数据,我们发现买家和卖家都要花更长的时间来接受糟糕的报价和拒绝好的报价。我们在两个数据集中发现了几乎相同的模式,表明出价大小对rt有因果影响。然而,这种关系对于拒绝的影响是接受的一半,减少了卖家透露的有用的私人信息的数量。与我们的预测相反,买家对缓慢的拒绝感到沮丧——他们不太可能向缓慢的卖家还价。我们还表明,传统上仅限于秒级决策的漂移-扩散模型(DDM)可以解释小时级,有时甚至是几天级的决策。DDM显示,更有经验的卖家不那么谨慎,更倾向于接受报价。总之,战略决策与预先计划的战略不一致。这强调了博弈论将RT纳入战略变量的必要性,并扩大了DDM对慢决策的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Enhancer-directed gene delivery for digit regeneration based on conserved epidermal factors. Profile of Helen M. Piwnica-Worms. Habitat-specific temporal variation in the pace of fish diversification. Deep learning framework for quantifying self-organization in Myxococcus xanthus. Glassy interphases reinforce elastomeric nanocomposites by enhancing volume expansion under strain.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1