Size of smallest coalition as a source of power in coalition bargaining

Abstract

AbstractSix‐person groups of male or female undergraduates played 12 trials of a simple coalition game that varied the sizes of the coalitions available to the players. Results indicated that the size of a player's smallest available coalition was inversely related to the player's outcomes. The most important outcome differences included effects of player position and interactions of position by trial block. The critical implications of these results for minimum power theory, Roth‐Shapley value, weighted probability model, bargaining theory, and equal excess model are discussed, and quantitative tests of these theories are also presented. Minor gender differences were obtained, and it is suggested that future research use both male and female subjects. A description of the bargaining process, based on the subjects' responses to a post‐session questionnaire and our observations, is given.