IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v7y2010i1p86-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Value vs. Private Value Categories in Online Auctions: A Distinction Without a Difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Boatwright

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Sharad Borle

    (Jones Graduate School of Management, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005)

  • Joseph B. Kadane

    (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

Abstract

There is a growing body of empirical research that attempts to distinguish private value from common value auctions. Strategic behavior for a seller/bidder in these two paradigms should differ, so the assumption of, or the identification of, the type of auction (private or common) is important for understanding the auction dynamics and strategies in game-theoretic models. However, it is difficult to recognize which of the two paradigms applies to a particular good. In this article, we briefly review some of the empirical work distinguishing common/private values using observed bidding behavior, both structural nonparametric and parametric models of auctions. We then examine the use of a priori beliefs to classify product categories. Specifically, we survey auction experts on their subjective judgment in classifying a list of consumer product categories on a private/common value continuum. We also survey consumers, asking them their subjective assessment. Interestingly, not only are extant models unable empirically to distinguish between private value and common value auctions, but also the experts have strongly divergent opinions on classifying product categories on this continuum. These findings raise doubts about the appropriateness of using a priori beliefs to classify a product as a common value versus a private value, and furthermore the findings question the feasibility of game-theoretic models to empirically distinguish private value from common value auctions. Perhaps decision theory would be a more useful paradigm for modeling auction decisions in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Boatwright & Sharad Borle & Joseph B. Kadane, 2010. "Common Value vs. Private Value Categories in Online Auctions: A Distinction Without a Difference?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 86-98, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:7:y:2010:i:1:p:86-98
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1090.0150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1090.0150
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.1090.0150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paarsch, Harry J., 1992. "Deciding between the common and private value paradigms in empirical models of auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 191-215.
    2. Katharina Sailer, 2006. "Searching the eBay Marketplace," CESifo Working Paper Series 1848, CESifo.
    3. Olivier Armantier, 2002. "Deciding between the Common and Private Values Paradigm: An Application to Experimental Data," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 783-801, August.
    4. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1982. "Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 113-120, February.
    5. Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    6. Jianwei Hou & Cesar Rego, 2007. "A classification of online bidders in a private value auction: evidence from eBay," International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(4), pages 322-338.
    7. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1982. "Reply to Professor Harsanyi," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 124-124, February.
    8. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1093-1103, September.
    9. Susan Athey & Philip A. Haile, 2002. "Identification of Standard Auction Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2107-2140, November.
    10. Joris Pinkse & Guofu Tan, 2005. "The Affiliation Effect in First-Price Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 263-277, January.
    11. Philip A. Haile & Han Hong & Matthew Shum, 2003. "Nonparametric Tests for Common Values at First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," NBER Working Papers 10105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Michael H. Rothkopf, 2007. "Decision Analysis: The Right Tool for Auctions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 167-172, September.
    13. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1997. "Game theory and empirical economics: The case of auction data 1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-35, January.
    14. Ockenfels, Axel & Roth, Alvin E., 2006. "Late and multiple bidding in second price Internet auctions: Theory and evidence concerning different rules for ending an auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 297-320, May.
    15. Hossain Tanjim & Morgan John, 2006. "...Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-30, January.
    16. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Vuong, Quang, 1996. "Structural Analysis of Auction Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 414-420, May.
    17. Theo Offerman, 2002. "Efficiency in Auctions with Private and Common Values: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 625-643, June.
    18. Lucking-Reiley, David, 2000. "Auctions on the Internet: What's Being Auctioned, and How?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 227-252, September.
    19. Klemperer, Paul, 1998. "Auctions with almost common values: The 'Wallet Game' and its applications," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 757-769, May.
    20. Dan Ariely & Axel Ockenfels & Alvin E. Roth, 2005. "An Experimental Analysis of Ending Rules in Internet Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 890-907, Winter.
    21. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1983. "The Confusion of Is and Ought in Game Theoretic Contexts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1365-1379, December.
    22. Kenneth Hendricks & Joris Pinkse & Robert H. Porter, 2003. "Empirical Implications of Equilibrium Bidding in First-Price, Symmetric, Common Value Auctions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 115-145.
    23. John C. Harsanyi, 1982. "Rejoinder to Professors Kadane and Larkey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 124-125, February.
    24. Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982. "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
    25. Han Hong & Matthew Shum, 2002. "Increasing Competition and the Winner's Curse: Evidence from Procurement," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 871-898.
    26. Edieal J. Pinker & Abraham Seidmann & Yaniv Vakrat, 2003. "Managing Online Auctions: Current Business and Research Issues," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1457-1484, November.
    27. Milgrom, Paul, 1989. "Auctions and Bidding: A Primer," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    28. Garthwaite, Paul H. & Kadane, Joseph B. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2005. "Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 680-701, June.
    29. John C. Harsanyi, 1982. "Comment---Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games: Comments on Kadane and Larkey's Paper," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 120-124, February.
    30. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-86, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. L. Robin Keller, 2011. "From the Editor ---Multiattribute and Intertemporal Preferences, Probability, and Stochastic Processes: Models and Assessment," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 165-169, September.
    2. Robert F. Bordley & Elena Katok & L. Robin Keller, 2010. "Honoring Michael H. Rothkopf's Legacy of Rigor and Relevance in Auction Theory: From the Editors," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, March.
    3. L. Robin Keller & Kelly M. Kophazi, 2011. "From the Editors---Deterrence, Multiattribute Utility, and Probability and Bayes' Updating," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 83-87, June.
    4. L. Robin Keller, 2011. "Investment and Defense Strategies, Heuristics, and Games: From the Editor ..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 1-3, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip A. Haile & Elie Tamer, 2003. "Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-51, February.
    2. Xun Tang, 2008. "Bounds on Revenue Distributions in Counterfactual Auctions with Reserve Prices," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-042, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Hickman Brent R. & Hubbard Timothy P. & Sağlam Yiğit, 2012. "Structural Econometric Methods in Auctions: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 67-106, August.
    4. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    5. Jonathan B. Hill & Artyom Shneyerov, 2009. "Are There Common Values in BC Timber Sales? A Tail-Index Nonparametric Test," Working Papers 09003, Concordia University, Department of Economics.
    6. Susan Athey & Philip A. Haile, 2006. "Empirical Models of Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12126, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortacsu, 2003. "Economic Insights from Internet Auctions: A Survey," NBER Working Papers 10076, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Giovanni Compiani & Philip Haile & Marcelo Sant’Anna, 2020. "Common Values, Unobserved Heterogeneity, and Endogenous Entry in US Offshore Oil Lease Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(10), pages 3872-3912.
    9. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. E Ballestero & C Bielza & D Pla-Santamaría, 2006. "A decision approach to competitive electronic sealed-bid auctions for land," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1126-1133, September.
    11. Hill, Jonathan B. & Shneyerov, Artyom, 2013. "Are there common values in first-price auctions? A tail-index nonparametric test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 174(2), pages 144-164.
    12. Nathalie Gimenes & Emmanuel Guerre, 2019. "Nonparametric identification of an interdependent value model with buyer covariates from first-price auction bids," Papers 1910.10646, arXiv.org.
    13. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19224 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Kevin Hasker & Robin Sickles, 2010. "eBay in the Economic Literature: Analysis of an Auction Marketplace," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 37(1), pages 3-42, August.
    15. Dutra, Renato Cabral Dias & Carpio, Lucio Guido Tapia, 2021. "Biodiesel auctions in Brazil: Symmetry of bids and informational paradigm," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Quang Vuong & Sandra Campo & Isabelle Perrigne, 2003. "Asymmetry in first-price auctions with affiliated private values," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 179-207.
    17. Gimenes, Nathalie & Guerre, Emmanuel, 2020. "Nonparametric identification of an interdependent value model with buyer covariates from first-price auction bids," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 1-18.
    18. Stefan Seifert & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Is there a risk of a winner’s curse in farmland auctions?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(3), pages 1140-1177.
    19. Sağlam, Yiğit, 2012. "Structural Econometric Methods in Auctions: A Guide to the Literature," Working Paper Series 19224, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    20. Yusuke Matsuki, 2016. "A Distribution-Free Test of Monotonicity with an Application to Auctions," Working Papers e110, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    21. Lamy, Laurent, 2012. "The econometrics of auctions with asymmetric anonymous bidders," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 167(1), pages 113-132.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:7:y:2010:i:1:p:86-98. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.