Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T16:58:11.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Auctions in near-continuous time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Cary Deck  and
Bart J. Wilson
Cary Deck*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
Bart J. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The lack of a behavioral isomorphism between theoretically equivalent auction institutions is a robust finding in experimental economics. Using a near-continuous time environment and graphically adjustable bid functions, we are able to provide subjects with extensive feedback in multiple auction formats. We find that (1) First Price and Dutch Clock auctions are behaviorally isomorphic and (2) Second Price and English Clock auctions are behaviorally isomorphic. We further replicate the established result (1) that prices in Dutch Clock auctions exceed those of English Clock auctions and (2) that prices in First Price auctions exceed those of Second Price auctions. The latter pattern is often attributed to risk aversion which changes the equilibrium bidding strategy for First Price and Dutch Clock auctions. Because we observe each participant’s bid function directly, we find evidence suggesting a different explanation, namely that bidders are best responding to the distribution of observed prices.

Keywords

Auction institutionsLearningNear-continuous time experiments

JEL classification

D4: Market Structure, Pricing, and Design D8: Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty C9: Design of Experiments
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 110 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-019-09603-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Adam, M, Eidels, A, Lux, E, & Teubner, T (2017). Bidding behavior in Dutch auctions: Insights from a structured literature review. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21(3), 363–397. 10.1080/10864415.2016.1319222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloysius, J, Deck, C, & Farmer, A (2012). Price bundling in competitive markets. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 11(6), 661–672. 10.1057/rpm.2012.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppinger, V, Smith, V, & Titus, J (1980). Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch, and sealed-bid auctions. Economic Inquiry, 18(1), 1–22. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00556.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J, Roberson, B, Smith, V, & Smith, VL (1982). Theory and behavior of single object auctions. Research in experimental economics, Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Cox, JC, Smith, V, & Walker, J (1983). A test that discriminates between two models of the Dutch-first auction non-isomorphism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 4(2), 205–219. 10.1016/0167-2681(83)90007-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J, Smith, V, & Walker, J (1988). Theory and individual behavior of first-price auctions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 61–99. 10.1007/BF00055565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D, & Korenok, O (2009). Posted offer markets in near-continuous time: An experimental investigation. Economic Inquiry, 47(3), 449–466. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00109.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deck, C, Lee, J, Reyes, J, & Rosen, C (2013). A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, 1–24. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.11.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deck, C, & Wilson, B (2002). The effectiveness of low price matching in mitigating the competitive pressure of low friction electronic markets. Electronic Commerce Research, 2, 385–398. 10.1023/A:1020567515249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deck, C, & Wilson, B (2006). Tracking customer search to price discriminate. Economic Inquiry, 44(2), 280–295. 10.1093/ei/cbj014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deck, C, & Wilson, B (2008). Experimental gasoline markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(1), 134–149. 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duong, Q, Lahia, S Chen, N, Elkind, E, & Koutsoupias, E (2011). Discrete choice models of bidder behavior in sponsored search. Internet and network economics. WINE 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Edelman, B, Ostrovsky, M, & Schwarz, M (2007). Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. American Economic Review, 97(1), 242–259. 10.1257/aer.97.1.242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R (1989). The effect of regret on optimal bidding in auctions. Management Science, 35(6), 685–692. 10.1287/mnsc.35.6.685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J, Holt, C, & Palfrey, T (2002). Quantal response equilibrium and overbidding in private-value auctions. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(1), 247–272. 10.1006/jeth.2001.2914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W, Ivanova-Stenzel, R, Königstein, M, & Strobel, M (2003). Learning to bid: An experimental study of bid functions adjustments in auctions and fair division games. The Economic Journal, 113(487), 477–494. 10.1111/1468-0297.00123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions. The American Economic Review, 79(4), 749–762.Google Scholar
Harstad, R (2000). Dominant strategy adoption and bidders’ experience with pricing rules. Experimental Economics, 3(3), 261–280. 10.1023/A:1011476619484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C, & Laury, S (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J Kagel, J, & Roth, A (1995). Auctions: A survey of experimental research. The handbook of experimental economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 501–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchkamp, O, Poen, E, & Reiss, J (2009). Outside options: Another reason to choose the first-price auction. European Economic Review, 53(2), 153–169. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucking-Reiley, D (1999). Using field experiments to test equivalence between auction formats: Magic on the internet. American Economic Review, 89(5), 1063–1080. 10.1257/aer.89.5.1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neugebauer, T, & Selten, R (2006). Individual behavior of first-price auctions: The importance of information feedback in computerized experimental markets. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(1), 183–204. 10.1016/j.geb.2005.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A, & Selten, R (2005). Impulse balance equilibrium and feedback in first price auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 51(1), 155–170. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrovsky, M., & Schwarz, M. (2016). Reserve prices in internet advertising auctions: A field experiment. Working paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Smith, K, & Dickhaut, J (2005). Economics and emotion: Institutions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 316–335. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turocy, T, Watson, E, & Battalio, R (2007). Framing the first-price auction. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 37–51. 10.1007/s10683-006-9130-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, EU, Blais, A, & Betz, NE (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290. 10.1002/bdm.414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Deck and Wilson supplementary material

Deck and Wilson supplementary material
Download Deck and Wilson supplementary material(File)
File 22.3 MB
Supplementary material: File

Deck and Wilson supplementary material

Deck and Wilson supplementary material
Download Deck and Wilson supplementary material(File)
File 18.5 KB