[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jogath/v31y2002i1p69-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the impact of low-balling: Experimental results in asymmetric auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Pezanis-Christou

    (Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica, CSIC, Campus Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona)

Abstract
The paper reports on a series of asymmetric auction experiments with private-independent values and two buyers. Maskin and Riley (2000) showed, under some conditions, that if one buyer has a greater probability than the other of not being able to bid, first-price auctions could yield lower revenues to the seller than second-price auctions. The data rejected this prediction because of an important overbidding when subjects received low values in first-price auctions. In this asymmetric setting, the observed overbidding cannot be explained by the usual risk aversion hypothesis and the detection of a learning pattern indicates that subjects used more an adaptive behaviour than a static one. An ad hoc bidding strategy for the buyers who are the most likely to bid explains the observed low bids better than the risk neutral equilibrium strategy. Finally, as subjects appear to have bid in equilibrium as if there were two other competitors instead of only one, their bidding behaviour can be thought to have displayed an over anxiousness about winning.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2002. "On the impact of low-balling: Experimental results in asymmetric auctions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 31(1), pages 69-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:31:y:2002:i:1:p:69-89
    Note: Received: January 1999/Final version June 2001 received low values in first-price auctions. In this asymmetric setting, the observed overbidding cannot be explained by the usual risk aversion hypothesis and the detection of a learning pattern indicates that subjects used more an adaptive behaviour than a static one. An ad hoc bidding strategy for the buyers who are the most likely to bid explains the observed low bids better than the risk neutral equilibrium strategy. Finally, as subjects appear to have bid in equilibrium as if there were two other competitors instead of only one, their bidding behaviour can be thought to have displayed an over anxiousness about winning.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00182/papers/2031001/20310069.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elbittar, Alexander, 2009. "Impact of valuation ranking information on bidding in first-price auctions: A laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 75-85, January.
    2. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2003. "Elicited bid functions in (a)symmetric first-price auctions," Working Papers 85, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Kröger, Sabine, 2008. "Price formation in a sequential selling mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 832-843, September.
    4. Guth, Werner & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2005. "Bidding behavior in asymmetric auctions: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 1891-1913, October.
    5. Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2010. "Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 6-22, March.
    6. repec:wyi:journl:002123 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Kirill Chernomaz, 2014. "Adaptive learning in an asymmetric auction: genetic algorithm approach," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 27-51, April.
    8. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Sonsino, Doron, 2004. "Comparative study of one-bid versus two-bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 561-583, August.
    9. Chernomaz, Kirill, 2012. "On the effects of joint bidding in independent private value auctions: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 690-710.
    10. Ronald Harstad, 2000. "Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(3), pages 261-280, December.
    11. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2017. "A Naïve Approach to Bidding," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-03, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    12. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2018. "A non-game-theoretic approach to bidding in first-price and all-pay auctions," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2018-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    13. Jacob K. Goeree & Theo Offerman, 2002. "The Amsterdam Auction," Microeconomics 0205002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. A. Alexander Elbittar, 2005. "Impact of Valuation Ranking Information on Bidding in First-Price," Microeconomics 0508008, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions · Asymmetric Buyers · Private-Independent Values · Experimental Economics;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:31:y:2002:i:1:p:69-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.