The limitations of fair division : an experimental evaluation of three procedures

Schneider, Gerald; Krämer, Ulrike Sabrina

The limitations of fair division : an experimental evaluation of three procedures

Files

The_limitation_of_fair_division_Kraemer_Schneider_JCR.pdf(164.59 KB)

Date

2004

Authors

Schneider, Gerald

Krämer, Ulrike Sabrina

Publication type

Journal article

Published in

Journal of Conflict Resolution ; 48 (2004), 4. - pp. 506-524

Abstract

Mathematical procedures that promise an envy-free, equitable, and efficient solution to distributional conflicts have received widespread attention. Two fair-division mechanisms, adjusted Knaster and proportional Knaster, which are similar to the well-known adjusted-winner procedure, are compared with the less fair divide-and-choose mechanism. Results show that participants largely prefer the adjusted-Knaster procedure to the two alternatives. Adjusted Knaster, closely followed by proportional Knaster, also promises the highest average payoff. Yet the sophisticated mechanisms cease to perform better than divide-and-choose once actors receive the possibility to deviate from the mandatory bargaining protocols of fair-division procedures. The preference for adjusted and proportional Knaster is found to be a partial function of the participants psychological profile. The more antisocial a participant, the more likely this respondent is to opt for a procedure with a compensatory mechanism.

Subject (DDC)

320 Politics

Keywords

fair division,experimental political science,bargaining,two-person games,proportional Knaster,adjusted winner,Knaster

Cite This

ISO 690

SCHNEIDER, Gerald, Ulrike Sabrina KRÄMER, 2004. The limitations of fair division : an experimental evaluation of three procedures. In: Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48(4), pp. 506-524. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0022002704266148

BibTex

@article{Schneider2004limit-4228,
  year={2004},
  doi={10.1177/0022002704266148},
  title={The limitations of fair division : an experimental evaluation of three procedures},
  number={4},
  volume={48},
  journal={Journal of Conflict Resolution},
  pages={506--524},
  author={Schneider, Gerald and Krämer, Ulrike Sabrina}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/4228">
    <dc:creator>Schneider, Gerald</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>First publ. in: Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (2004), 4, pp. 506-524</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-24T10:13:09Z</dc:date>
    <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
    <dc:creator>Krämer, Ulrike Sabrina</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/4228/1/The_limitation_of_fair_division_Kraemer_Schneider_JCR.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-24T10:13:09Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:contributor>Krämer, Ulrike Sabrina</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:issued>2004</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Mathematical procedures that promise an envy-free, equitable, and efficient solution to distributional conflicts have received widespread attention. Two fair-division mechanisms, adjusted Knaster and proportional Knaster, which are similar to the well-known adjusted-winner procedure, are compared with the less fair divide-and-choose mechanism. Results show that participants largely prefer the adjusted-Knaster procedure to the two alternatives. Adjusted Knaster, closely followed by proportional Knaster, also promises the highest average payoff. Yet the sophisticated mechanisms cease to perform better than divide-and-choose once actors receive the possibility to deviate from the mandatory bargaining protocols of fair-division procedures. The preference for adjusted and proportional Knaster is found to be a partial function of the participants  psychological profile. The more  antisocial  a participant, the more likely this respondent is to opt for a procedure with a compensatory mechanism.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/4228/1/The_limitation_of_fair_division_Kraemer_Schneider_JCR.pdf"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:title>The limitations of fair division : an experimental evaluation of three procedures</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/4228"/>
    <dc:contributor>Schneider, Gerald</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Bibliography of Konstanz

Yes