The paper presents empirical results on the discounting of delayed payoffswhich show that: (1) the best approximation of the discounting process is a hyperbolic function, (2) (both animals and humans) can reverse their preferences in time. The article presents theoretical conditions on the intertemporal preference reversal.

The goal of the article was to compare negotiation behavior in duopoly andbilateral monopoly. The nature of tested bargaining problems was based on the scheme of cooperative repeated games. Performed experiments tested two hypotheses. First, in terms of cooperative game players will negotiate Pareto optimal solutions. Second, the split of profits will be indicated by egalitarian solution. Other cooperative results, that were taken into account were Nash and Kalai-Smorodinsky solutions. The results of experiments supported taken hypotheses. Additionally, it gave the opportunity to make some comparisons between two tested market structures. Despite the differences of two bargaining situations, the results of experiments brought some observations showing similarities of bargaining behavior. First, in both cases negotiated solutions were significantly close to Pareto optimal set. Second, either in duopoly or in bilateral monopoly the results of negotiations were significantly close to egalitarian solutions. Next similarity was, that the gap between profits in opening proposals significantly differed from zero, and was significantly correlated in pairs of players in both experiments.

I conducted a three-person ultimatum experiment in which the stake is divided into two pots of different sizes. The responders receive either the same amount of money or the same share in their pots, and have full information about the distribution of the stake. I find that subjects care about comparisons between the responders and these comparisons significantly affect their emotions. The responders who are treated more poorly than their counterparts report high intensity of anger and envy, and by punishing the proposer with rejections cause a significant loss of effectiveness in the distribution of income. On the other hand, the responders who are treated better than their counterparts report high intensity of guilt, which suggests strong inequality aversion.