Abstract
Two game theoretic solution theories, the M1(i) bargaining set and the M1(im) modified bargaining set, were tested competitively in six three-person games with side-payments. Subjects were 90 males who participated in 30 bargaining groups. Results showed that M1(im) is significantly and consistently superior to M1(i) in predicting the distribution of payoffs in these conflicts (p <.01). Results are discussed in terms of the formal differences between the theories.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
