IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transe/v145y2021ics1366554520308012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal two-stage elimination contests for crowdsourcing

Author

Listed:
  • Hou, Ting
  • Zhang, Wen

Abstract

As a new business model, crowdsourcing contest is a means of open innovation. To further improve the efficiency of crowdsourcing contests, two-stage elimination contests are often used as a selection mechanism by firms. This paper explores two forms of elimination mechanisms: sub-elimination and sequential-elimination. Using game theory and auction theory approaches, we model the game between a contest seeker and participants and derive the equilibrium results under these two forms, including the equilibrium decisions and corresponding expected payoff for the contest seeker and the effort strategy at each stage and total expected surplus for all participants. Our results show that: (i) Under both forms, it is optimal to have exactly two participants competing with each other in the final stage; (ii) In equilibrium in the sub-elimination contest, all participants exert more effort in each stage when the number of participants remaining is smaller. The equilibrium effort strategy of high-ability participants has the same trend in a sequential-elimination contest, but the low-ability participant’s equilibrium effort level in the final contest is first decreasing and then increasing in the number of remaining participants; (iii) The optimal two-stage elimination form is sequential-elimination for the contest seeker when compared with no-elimination and sub-elimination because under sequential-elimination, all participants in the second stage will exert more effort, leading to higher-quality solutions. Additionally, we find that this form is also preferred by high-ability participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Hou, Ting & Zhang, Wen, 2021. "Optimal two-stage elimination contests for crowdsourcing," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:145:y:2021:i:c:s1366554520308012
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.102156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554520308012
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102156?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela, 2008. "The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 615-631, Springer.
    2. Deck, Cary & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2015. "Single- and double-elimination all-pay tournaments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 416-429.
    3. Noam Cohen & Guy Maor & Aner Sela, 2018. "Two-stage elimination contests with optimal head starts," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(3), pages 177-192, December.
    4. Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2019. "Competitive Pressure Widens the Gender Gap in Performance: Evidence from a Two-stage Competition in Mathematics," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1863-1893.
    5. Devari, Aashwinikumar & Nikolaev, Alexander G. & He, Qing, 2017. "Crowdsourcing the last mile delivery of online orders by exploiting the social networks of retail store customers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 105-122.
    6. Jennifer Brown & Dylan B. Minor, 2014. "Selecting the Best? Spillover and Shadows in Elimination Tournaments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3087-3102, December.
    7. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2020. "Fair elimination-type competitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 528-535.
    8. Konrad, Kai A. & Kovenock, Dan, 2009. "Multi-battle contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 256-274, May.
    9. Dmitry Ryvkin, 2011. "Fatigue in Dynamic Tournaments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1011-1041, December.
    10. Sheremeta, Roman M., 2010. "Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 731-747, March.
    11. Moldovanu, Benny & Sela, Aner, 2006. "Contest architecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 70-96, January.
    12. Laurence Ales & Soo-Haeng Cho & Ersin Körpeoğlu, 2017. "Optimal Award Scheme in Innovation Tournaments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 693-702, June.
    13. Terry A. Taylor, 2018. "On-Demand Service Platforms," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 704-720, October.
    14. Cheng, Xi & Gou, Qinglong & Yue, Jinfeng & Zhang, Yan, 2019. "Equilibrium decisions for an innovation crowdsourcing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 241-260.
    15. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    16. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    17. Segev, Ella, 2020. "Crowdsourcing contests," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 241-255.
    18. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    19. Lawrence Friedman, 1958. "Game-Theory Models in the Allocation of Advertising Expenditures," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 699-709, October.
    20. Wang, Xiaolei & He, Fang & Yang, Hai & Oliver Gao, H., 2016. "Pricing strategies for a taxi-hailing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 212-231.
    21. Juncai Jiang & Yu Wang, 2020. "A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of Feedback in Ideation Contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 481-500, February.
    22. Choi, Tsan-Ming & He, Yanyan, 2019. "Peer-to-peer collaborative consumption for fashion products in the sharing economy: Platform operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 49-65.
    23. Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope & John Cadigan, 2004. "Multi-period rent-seeking contests with carryover: Theory and experimental evidence," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 187-211, November.
    24. Alexander Matros, 2006. "Elimination Tournaments where Players Have Fixed Resources," Working Paper 205, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2006.
    25. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    26. Christian Groh & Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela & Uwe Sunde, 2012. "Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 49(1), pages 59-80, January.
    27. Liu, Weihua & Yan, Xiaoyu & Wei, Wanying & Xie, Dong, 2019. "Pricing decisions for service platform with provider’s threshold participating quantity, value-added service and matching ability," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 410-432.
    28. Gad Allon & Volodymyr Babich, 2020. "Crowdsourcing and Crowdfunding in the Manufacturing and Services Sectors," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 102-112, January.
    29. Hvide, Hans K. & Kristiansen, Eirik G., 2003. "Risk taking in selection contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 172-179, January.
    30. Robert Ridlon & Jiwoong Shin, 2013. "Favoring the Winner or Loser in Repeated Contests," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 768-785, September.
    31. Ersin Körpeoğlu & Soo-Haeng Cho, 2018. "Incentives in Contests with Heterogeneous Solvers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2709-2715, June.
    32. Qiang Fu & Jingfeng Lu, 2012. "The optimal multi-stage contest," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(2), pages 351-382, October.
    33. Zhang, Juan & Huang, Jian, 2020. "Deceptive advertising in a crowdfunding market," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    34. Kung, Ling-Chieh & Zhong, Guan-Yu, 2017. "The optimal pricing strategy for two-sided platform delivery in the sharing economy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-12.
    35. Iman Dayarian & Martin Savelsbergh, 2020. "Crowdshipping and Same‐day Delivery: Employing In‐store Customers to Deliver Online Orders," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2153-2174, September.
    36. Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2010. "The selection efficiency of tournaments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 667-675, November.
    37. Shen, Hui & Lin, Jane, 2020. "Investigation of crowdshipping delivery trip production with real-world data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    38. Wang, Yuan & Zhang, Dongxiang & Liu, Qing & Shen, Fumin & Lee, Loo Hay, 2016. "Towards enhancing the last-mile delivery: An effective crowd-tasking model with scalable solutions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 279-293.
    39. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    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. Wang, Haibo & Alidaee, Bahram, 2023. "White-glove service delivery: A quantitative analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Fupeng Sun & Yanwei Sun & Chiwei Yan & Li Jin, 2022. "Restricting Entries to All-Pay Contests," Papers 2205.08104, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    3. Dong, Zhi-Long & Ribeiro, Celso C. & Xu, Fengmin & Zamora, Ailec & Ma, Yujie & Jing, Kui, 2023. "Dynamic scheduling of e-sports tournaments," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(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. Konrad, Kai A., 2007. "Strategy in contests: an introduction [Strategie in Turnieren – eine Einführung]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Processes and Governance SP II 2007-01, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Jennifer Brown & Dylan B. Minor, 2014. "Selecting the Best? Spillover and Shadows in Elimination Tournaments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3087-3102, December.
    3. Zhang, Juan & Huang, Jian, 2020. "Deceptive advertising in a crowdfunding market," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    4. Cheng, Xi & Gou, Qinglong & Yue, Jinfeng & Zhang, Yan, 2019. "Equilibrium decisions for an innovation crowdsourcing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 241-260.
    5. Joel O. Wooten, 2022. "Leaps in innovation and the Bannister effect in contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(6), pages 2646-2663, June.
    6. Aner Sela, 2016. "Two Stage Contests With Effort-Dependent Rewards," Working Papers 1612, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    7. Sheremeta, Roman, 2009. "Essays on Experimental Investigation of Lottery Contests," MPRA Paper 49888, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Wang, Yi-Jia & Wang, Yue & Huang, George Q. & Lin, Ciyun, 2024. "Public acceptance of crowdsourced delivery from a customer perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 793-805.
    9. Jesse Bockstedt & Cheryl Druehl & Anant Mishra, 2022. "Incentives and Stars: Competition in Innovation Contests with Participant and Submission Visibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1372-1393, March.
    10. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    11. Klein, Arnd Heinrich & Schmutzler, Armin, 2017. "Optimal effort incentives in dynamic tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 199-224.
    12. He, Shan & Dai, Ying & Ma, Zu-Jun, 2023. "To offer or not to offer? The optimal value-insured strategy for crowdsourced delivery platforms," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Patricia Esteve‐González & Anwesha Mukherjee, 2023. "Heterogeneity, leveling the playing field, and affirmative action in contests," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(3), pages 924-974, January.
    14. Shakun D. Mago & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "New Hampshire Effect: behavior in sequential and simultaneous multi-battle contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 325-349, June.
    15. Migheli, Matteo, 2019. "Competing for promotion: Are “THE BEST” always the best?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 149-161.
    16. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Laughren, Kevin & Sheremeta, Roman, 2020. "War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 998-1013.
    17. Hörtnagl-Pozzo, Tanja & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Oexl, Regine & Stracke, Rudi & Sunde, Uwe, 2023. "Heterogeneity in rent-seeking contests with multiple stages: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    18. Nicolas de Roos & Alexander Matros & Vladimir Smirnov, 2024. "Elimination tournaments with resource constraints," Working Papers 2024-06, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    19. Nirup Menon & Anant Mishra & Shun Ye, 2020. "Beyond Related Experience: Upstream vs. Downstream Experience in Innovation Contest Platforms with Interdependent Problem Domains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1045-1065, September.
    20. Choi, Tsan-Ming, 2019. "Blockchain-technology-supported platforms for diamond authentication and certification in luxury supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-29.

    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:transe:v:145:y:2021:i:c:s1366554520308012. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600244/description#description .

    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.