Excess Entry in an Experimental Winner-Take-All Market
Abstract"Winner-Take-All"-markets, i.e. markets in which the relative and not the absolute performance is decisive, have gained in importance. Such markets have a tendency to provoke inefficiently many entries. We investigate the functioning of such markets with the help of experiments and show that there are even more inefficient entries than predicted by the Nash equilibrium. Moreover, this effect increases with group size. Quantal response equilibrium predicts the increase in group size but fails to predict the excess entry in the smaller group. We show that the excess entry is not caused by coordination failures. Furthermore, individual entry behavior is not significantly linked to risk preferences. We discuss several concepts that might explain the observed excess entry.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich in its series IEW - Working Papers with number 086.
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Winner-take-all market; Excess entry; Experiment; Market entry;
Other versions of this item:
- Fischbacher, Urs & Thöni, Christian, 2008. "Excess entry in an experimental winner-take-all market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 150-163, July.
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Anderson, Simon P. & Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2008. "Logit Equilibrium Models of Anomalous Behavior: What to do when the Nash Equilibrium Says One Thing and the Data Say Something Else," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
- Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2000.
"Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions,"
Virginia Economics Online Papers
345, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
- Palfrey, Thomas R. & Goeree, Jacob & Holt, Charles, 2000. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-value Auctions," Working Papers 1073, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Vital Anderhub & Werner GÃ¤uth & Wieland MÃ¤uller & Martin Strobel, 2000. "An Experimental Analysis of Intertemporal Allocation Behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 137-152, October.
- Sundali, James A. & Rapoport, Amnon & Seale, Darryl A., 1995. "Coordination in Market Entry Games with Symmetric Players," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 203-218, November.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Selten, Reinhard & Abdolkarim Sadrieh & Klaus Abbink, 1995.
"Money does Not Induce Risk Neutral Behavior, but Binary Lotteries Do even Worse,"
Discussion Paper Serie B
343, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Reinhard Selten & Abdolkarim Sadrieh & Klaus Abbink, 1999. "Money Does Not Induce Risk Neutral Behavior, but Binary Lotteries Do even Worse," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 213-252, June.
- Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004.
"Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
- Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann & Jörg Oechssler, 2001. "Two are Few and Four are Many: Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse12_2001, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Isaac, R Mark & Walker, James M, 1988.
"Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 179-99, February.
- R. M. Isaac & J. M. Walker, 2010. "Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contribution mechanism," Levine's Working Paper Archive 310, David K. Levine.
- Wulf Albers & Robin Pope & Reinhard Selten & Bodo Vogt, 1999.
"Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance,"
317, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Harrison, Glenn W, 1992. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1426-43, December.
- R. Mark Isaac & Duncan James, 2000. "Asset Markets: How They Are Affected by Tournament Incentives for Individuals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 995-1004, September.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Matthew Rabin., 2000.
"Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem,"
Economics Working Papers
E00-279, University of California at Berkeley.
- Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7667, David K. Levine.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0012001, EconWPA.
- Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt731230f8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
- Amnon Rapoport & Darryl A. Seale & Ido Erev & James A. Sundali, 1998. "Equilibrium Play in Large Group Market Entry Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 119-141, January.
- Edward P. Lazear & Sherwin Rosen, 1979.
"Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,"
NBER Working Papers
0401, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- C. Monica Capra, 1999. "Anomalous Behavior in a Traveler's Dilemma?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 678-690, June.
- Bull, Clive & Schotter, Andrew & Weigelt, Keith, 1987. "Tournaments and Piece Rates: An Experimental Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 1-33, February.
- Charles A. Holt & Jacob K. Goeree, 1999. "Stochastic Game Theory: For Playing Games, Not Just for Doing Theory," Virginia Economics Online Papers 306, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
- Harbring, Christine & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2003. "An experimental study on tournament design," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 443-464, August.
- Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Eric Schniter, 2013. "Why Real Leisure Really Matters: Incentive Effects on Real Effort in the Laboratory," Working Papers 13-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- Aleksander Berentsen & Guillaume Rocheteau, 2004.
"Money and Information,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 915-944.
- Berentsen, Aleksander & Rocheteau, Guillaume, 2002.
"On the efficiency of monetary exchange: how divisibility of money matters,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 49(8), pages 1621-1649, November.
- Aleksander Berentsen & Guillaume Rocheteau, . "On the Efficiency of Monetary Exchange:How Divisibility of Money Matters," IEW - Working Papers 101, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2013.
"Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions,"
MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 4(4), pages 608-623, October.
- Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2009. "Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2009 2009-25, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
- Aleksander Berentsen & Guillaume Rocheteau, .
"Money and the Gains from Trade,"
IEW - Working Papers
100, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Ottone, Stefania & Ponzano, Ferruccio, 2010. "Competition and cooperation in markets. The experimental case of a winner-take-all setting," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 163-170, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marita Kieser).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.