Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository


By Zafer Akin


The literature on time-inconsistent preferences introduced naive, partially naive and sophisticated as types of agents that represent different levels of unawareness of agents' self-control problems. This paper incorporates time-inconsistent players in a sequential bargaining model. We first consider 'naive' agents who never learn about their types and show that bargaining between such a player and a standard exponential agent ends in immediate agreement. The more naive a player, the higher his share. If naive agents can learn their type over time, we show that there is a critical date such that there is no agreement before that date. Hence, existence of time-inconsistent players who can learn as they play the game can be another explanation for delays in bargaining.Hyperbolic discounting, learning, bargaining, delay

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1999). Doing It Now or Later",
  2. (2003). Econometrica, "Bargaining Without a Common Prior-An Immediate Agreement Theorem",
  3. (1984). Econometrica,"Involuntary unemployment as a perfect equilibrium in a Bargaining Model",
  4. (1997). Golden eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.",
  5. (1999). Incentives for Procrastinators",
  6. (2004). Intertemporal Price Discrimination with Time Inconsistent Consumers",
  7. (2003). Journal of Economic Theory, "Bargaining in a nonstationary environment",
  8. Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model",
  9. (1968). ReStud, "On Second-Best National Saving and GameEquilibrium Growth",
  10. (1956). Review of Economic Studies, "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization.",
  11. Self-Control in the market: Evidence from the Health Club Industryā€¯, mimeo,
  12. (2004). The Role of Time-Inconsistent Preferences in Intertemporal Investment Decisions and Bargaining",
  13. (2004). Waiting to Persuade",

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.