IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecinqu/v51y2013i1p882-895.html

Selection Into Auctions For Risky And Ambiguous Prospects

Author

Listed:
  • MARTIN G. KOCHER
  • STEFAN T. TRAUTMANN

Abstract

We study experimentally the selection into first-price sealed-bid auctions for a risky or an ambiguous prospect. Most subjects chose to submit a bid for the risky prospect, leading to thinner markets for the ambiguous prospect. Transaction prices for both prospects were equal although subjects expected the ambiguous markets to be smaller. Evidence of a positive correlation between risk and ambiguity aversion suggests that the ambiguous markets were populated by relatively risk tolerant bidders. A control experiment with selection in a simple choice task shows that subjects correctly anticipate the effects of selection on market size and risk attitudes.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Martin G. Kocher & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Selection Into Auctions For Risky And Ambiguous Prospects," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 882-895, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecinqu:v:51:y:2013:i:1:p:882-895
    DOI: j.1465-7295.2010.00347.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00347.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1465-7295.2010.00347.x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Qiu, Yueming & Colson, Gregory & Grebitus, Carola, 2014. "Risk preferences and purchase of energy-efficient technologies in the residential sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 216-229.
    2. Qiu, Yueming & Colson, Gregory & Wetzstein, Michael E., 2017. "Risk preference and adverse selection for participation in time-of-use electricity pricing programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 126-142.
    3. Christoph Huber & Julia Rose, 2019. "Do individual attitudes towards imprecision survive in experimental asset markets?," Working Papers 2019-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:bw8fc_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Christian Königsheim & Moritz Lukas & Markus Nöth, 2017. "Financial Knowledge, Risk Preferences, and the Demand for Digital Financial Services," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 18(4), pages 343-375, October.
    6. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    7. Farjam, Mike & Kirchkamp, Oliver, 2018. "Bubbles in hybrid markets: How expectations about algorithmic trading affect human trading," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 248-269.
    8. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Cingl, Lubomír & Martinsson, Peter & Stojic, Hrvoje, 2013. "Separating attitudes towards money from attitudes towards probabilities: Stake effects and ambiguity as a test for prospect theory," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-401, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Discussion Paper 2012-022, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    11. Milos Borozan & Loreta Cannito & Barbara Luppi, 2022. "A tale of two ambiguities: A conceptual overview of findings from economics and psychology," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 11-21, July.
    12. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger & Weitzel, Utz, 2013. "Do ambiguity effects survive in experimental asset markets?," MPRA Paper 44700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Carvalho, M., 2011. "Essays in behavioral microeconomic theory," Other publications TiSEM 97fbb10e-5f12-420b-b8c4-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Brandts, Jordi & Yao, Lan, 2010. "Ambiguous Information and Market Entry: An Experimental Study," MPRA Paper 25276, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Andrea Robbett & Michael K. Graham & Peter Hans Matthews, 2016. "Revenue Implications of Strategic and External Auction Risk," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Milo Bianchi & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2019. "Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1486-1501, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:bla:ecinqu:v:51:y:2013:i:1:p:882-895. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.