IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi14/187386.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Anchoring Effects in an Experimental Auction

Author

Listed:
  • Holst, Gese Sophie
  • Hermann, Daniel
  • Mußhoff, Oliver

Abstract

Auctioning goods is a widespread practice, particularly in the agricultural sector. The out-come of auctions can be affected by various factors. One of these factors can be anchoring effects, which describe the influence of present available information on numerical values in human decisions. However, the influence of anchoring effects in auctions carried out offline is largely unknown. For this reason, we analyze anchoring effects of exogenously provided values using an experimental auction with farmers. In total, 48 groups of five farmers each participate in a series of four auctions for envelopes containing a €10 banknote with a 50% probability of occurrence. Our results indicate that anchoring based on exogenously presented values can result either in negative adjustment or no adjustment depending on the auction characteristic. Furthermore, the results show that previous bids affect following bids, which might also be an anchoring effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Holst, Gese Sophie & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2014. "Anchoring Effects in an Experimental Auction," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187386, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi14:187386
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.187386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/187386/files/anchoring%20effects%20in%20an%20experimental%20auction.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.187386?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian E. Roe & Timothy E. Wyszynski & Jafar M. Olimov, 2011. "Pigs in Cyberspace: A Natural Experiment Testing Differences between Online and Offline Club-Pig Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1278-1291.
    2. Kamins, Michael A & Dreze, Xavier & Folkes, Valerie S, 2004. "Effects of Seller-Supplied Prices on Buyers' Product Evaluations: Reference Prices in an Internet Auction Context," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 622-628, March.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    4. Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
    5. Uri Simonsohn & Dan Ariely, 2008. "When Rational Sellers Face Nonrational Buyers: Evidence from Herding on eBay," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1624-1637, September.
    6. Fabio Tufano, 2010. "Are ‘true’ preferences revealed in repeated markets? An experimental demonstration of context-dependent valuations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Alan Beggs & Kathryn Graddy, 2009. "Anchoring Effects: Evidence from Art Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 1027-1039, June.
    8. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    9. Anna Dodonova & Yuri Khoroshilov, 2004. "Anchoring and transaction utility: evidence from on-line auctions," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 307-310.
    10. repec:feb:framed:00135 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    12. Schweizer, Urs & von Ungern-Sternberg, Thomas, 1983. "Sealed Bid Auctions and the Search for Better Information," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 79-85, February.
    13. Phillips, Owen R. & Menkhaus, Dale J., 2010. "The culture of private negotiation: Endogenous price anchors in simple bilateral bargaining experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 705-715, December.
    14. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    16. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    17. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    18. Bucchianeri, Grace W. & Minson, Julia A., 2013. "A homeowner's dilemma: Anchoring in residential real estate transactions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 76-92.
    19. Riley, John G, 1989. "Expected Revenue from Open and Sealed Bid Auctions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 41-50, Summer.
    20. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    21. Wolfstetter, Elmar, 1996. "Auctions: An Introduction," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 367-420, December.
    22. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
    23. Eiichiro Kazumori & John Mcmillan, 2005. "Selling Online Versus Live," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 543-569, December.
    24. Coatney, Kalyn T. & Shaffer, Sherrill L. & Menkhaus, Dale J., 2012. "Auction prices, market share, and a common agent," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 61-73.
    25. McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1987. "Auctions and Bidding," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 699-738, June.
    26. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A. List, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(1), pages 277-290, January.
    27. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    28. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    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. 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.
    2. Chui, Peter M.W. & Fong, Lawrence Hoc Nang & Ren, Jinjuan & Tam, Lewis H.K., 2022. "Anchoring effects in repeated auctions of homogeneous objects: Evidence from Macao," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Nilton Porto & Soo Hyun Cho & Michael Gutter, 2021. "Student Loan Decision Making: Experience as an Anchor," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 773-784, December.
    4. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    5. Ballesteros, Josefina F. & Schouteten, Joachim J. & Otilla, Angelyn & Ramirez, Ramona Isabel & Gellynck, Xavier & Casaul, Julieta & De Steur, Hans, 2023. "Does award and origin labeling influence consumers’ willingness-to-pay beyond sensory cues? An experimental auction on improved Philippine tablea (cocoa liquor)," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Beraldo, Sergio & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The importance of the future when deciding levels of personal responsibility and demand for redistribution," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Tanya O’Garra & Matthew R Sisco, 2020. "The effect of anchors and social information on behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2022. "Anchored strategic reasoning," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    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. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Anchoring effects in an experimental auction – Are farmers anchored?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-117.
    2. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Musshoff, Oliver & Vollmer, Elisabeth, 2018. "How does the Risk Attitude affect the Bidding Behavior of Farmers? Results of an Experimental Auction," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(1), March.
    3. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    4. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    5. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2016. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    6. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "An experimental study on social anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 196, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    7. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2016. "Eliciting risk preferences: Firefighting in the field," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2020. "Honey, Mugs and Caricatures: anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold hypothetically," Working Papers 2020-40, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2020. "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 77-94, June.
    12. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    13. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.
    14. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    16. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    17. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2022. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 122-140, March.
    18. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 547, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    19. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    20. Strobl, Renate, 2022. "Background risk, insurance and investment behaviour: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 34-68.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance; Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gewi14:187386. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.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.