A Comparison Of Naive And Experienced Bidders In Common Value Offer Auctions A Laboratory Analysis
AbstractExperiments compare bidding behavior of experienced business executives in the construction contract industry with that of student subjects in efforts to identify differences in behavior between "naive" and "expert" subjects. Qualitatively similar behavior is reported across subject pools as in both cases (1) bidders suffer from the "winner's curse"; (2) increasing the number of bidders exacerbates the winner's curse; and (3) public information reducing uncertainty in cost estimates has the perverse effect (relative to Nash equilibrium bidding theory) of increasing the offer price in the presence of a winner's curse. Copyright 1989 by Royal Economic Society.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Houston - Department of Economics in its series Papers with number 11.
Length: 11 pages
Date of creation: 1988
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, HOUSTON TEXAS 77023 U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.class.uh.edu/econ/
More information through EDIRC
construction industry ; auctions ; bidding ; behaviour ; contracts;
Other versions of this item:
- Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989. "A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-15, March.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.