IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v144y2016icp25-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does group discussion lead to better informed and more strategic market entry decisions?

Author

Listed:
  • Murad, Zahra

Abstract

We investigate the possibility of group discussion serving as an implicit information channel to eliminate biased entry decisions into experimental markets. We find that groups are more informed than individuals in their beliefs. Nevertheless they make similarly biased market entry decisions failing to learn from feedback and repetition.

Suggested Citation

  • Murad, Zahra, 2016. "Does group discussion lead to better informed and more strategic market entry decisions?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 25-28.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:144:y:2016:i:c:p:25-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.04.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176516301422
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mata, Jose & Portugal, Pedro, 1994. "Life Duration of New Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 227-245, September.
    2. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    3. Radzevick, Joseph R. & Moore, Don A., 2008. "Myopic biases in competitions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 206-218, November.
    4. Sutter, Matthias, 2005. "Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 41-46, July.
    5. Daylian M. Cain & Don A. Moore & Uriel Haran, 2015. "Making sense of overconfidence in market entry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, January.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Timothy Dunne & Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1988. "Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S. Manufacturing Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(4), pages 495-515, Winter.
    9. Ewers, Mara, 2012. "Information and Competition Entry," IZA Discussion Papers 6411, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Sutter, Matthias & Czermak, Simon & Feri, Francesco, 2013. "Strategic sophistication of individuals and teams. Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 395-410.
    11. 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.
    12. Gary Charness & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 157-176, Summer.
    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. Zahra Murad & Chris Starmer, 2020. "Confidence Snowballing and Relative Performance Feedback," Discussion Papers 2020-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    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. Bruhin, Adrian & Santos-Pinto, Luís & Staubli, David, 2018. "How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 350-371.
    2. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Helbach, Christoph, 2014. "Does truth win when teams reason strategically?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 86-89.
    3. Andrea Morone & Simone Nuzzo & Rocco Caferra, 2019. "The Dollar Auction Game: A Laboratory Comparison Between Individuals and Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-98, February.
    4. Faralla, Valeria & Borà, Guido & Innocenti, Alessandro & Novarese, Marco, 2020. "Promises in group decision making," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-11.
    5. Lahav, Yaron, 2015. "Eliciting beliefs in beauty contest experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 45-49.
    6. Axel Franzen & Sonja Pointner, 2013. "Giving according to preferences: Decision-making in the group dictator game," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 2, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 24 Jan 2014.
    7. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are teams less inequality averse than individuals?," Post-Print halshs-01077253, HAL.
    8. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2018. "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 31-43.
    9. He, Haoran & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Are group members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 111-124.
    10. Fochmann, Martin & Kocher, Martin G. & Müller, Nadja & Wolf, Nadja, 2019. "Dishonesty and Risk-Taking: Compliance Decisions of Individuals and Groups," IHS Working Paper Series 8, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    11. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are team members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Working Papers halshs-00996545, HAL.
    12. Baethge, Caroline, 2016. "Performance in the beauty contest: How strategic discussion enhances team reasoning," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-17-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    13. Danková, Katarína & Servátka, Maroš, 2019. "Gender robustness of overconfidence and excess entry," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 179-199.
    14. Morone, Andrea & Caferra, Rocco, 2019. "Individual and social preferences under risk: laboratory evidence on the group size effect," MPRA Paper 92856, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Strobel, Christina, 2019. "Sharing responsibility with a machine," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 25-33.
    16. Kenju Kamei, 2019. "The power of joint decision-making in a finitely-repeated dilemma," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(3), pages 600-622.
    17. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana & Nemore, Francesco, 2017. "Individual and group preferences over risk: does group size matter?," MPRA Paper 82453, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boemont & Nathalie Colombier, 2004. "Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla06063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Sep 2006.
    19. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    20. Akin, Zafer, 2020. "Asymmetric Guessing Games," MPRA Paper 103871, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experimental market entry games; Group decision making; Information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:eee:ecolet:v:144:y:2016:i:c:p:25-28. See general 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.