IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i4d10.1007_s10726-016-9471-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory E. Kersten

    (Concordia University)

  • Tomasz Wachowicz

    (University of Economics)

  • Margaret Kersten

    (Carleton University)

Abstract

The paper discusses experiments aimed at comparing multi-attribute reverse auctions and multi-bilateral negotiations for procuring goods with multiple attributes. Both exchange mechanisms involve a buyer purchasing from one of several sellers. Two types of negotiations are considered: verifiable and non-verifiable. They differ in the sellers’ knowledge of the current best offer on the table; in verifiable negotiations the best offer is automatically shown to every participant, which makes it similar to auctions. Online auctions and negotiation systems were used to study auction and negotiation processes, and the mechanisms’ efficiency. The results show that buyers did best using auctions, followed by non-verifiable and verifiable negotiations. We also looked into the differences between auctions and negotiations in terms of their duration, sellers’ and buyers’ involvement, and efficiency and conclude that the behavior of buyers and sellers cannot be explained solely on the grounds of traditional economics. It can, however, be explained on the grounds of social exchange theory and behavioral economics. In multi-bilateral negotiations competition and social behavior coexist. When transparency is introduced the social effect becomes stronger, weakening the impact of competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-016-9471-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-016-9471-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-016-9471-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-016-9471-0?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. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Rafael Lalive & Armin Schmutzler, 2011. "Auctions vs negotiations in public procurement: which works better?," ECON - Working Papers 023, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    4. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2009. "Why Do Sellers (Usually) Prefer Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1544-75, September.
    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. Shai Fernández & Ulf Bodin & Kåre Synnes, 2025. "A Framework for Sustainable and Fair Demand-Supply Matchmaking Through Auctioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-37, January.
    2. Dong Cai & Chunxiang Guo & Kee‐hung Lai, 2024. "Renegotiations after procurement auctions: Coping with supply disruptions due to underestimating costs," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(4), pages 2130-2143, June.
    3. Kumar, Ravin, 2019. "Addictive Auctions: using lucky-draw and gambling addiction to increase participation during auctioning," OSF Preprints darvs, Center for Open Science.
    4. Bo Yu & Gregory E. Kersten & Rustam Vahidov, 2022. "An experimental examination of credible information disclosure, perception of fairness, and intention to do business in online multi-bilateral negotiations," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 217-237, March.
    5. Xiaohu Qian & Shu-Cherng Fang & Min Huang & Tiantian Nie & Xingwei Wang, 2019. "Bidding Decisions with Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking in Reverse Auctions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 757-786, August.
    6. Marc T. P. Adam & Timm Teubner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "No Rage Against the Machine: How Computer Agents Mitigate Human Emotional Processes in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 543-571, August.
    7. repec:osf:osfxxx:darvs_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Pham, Long & Teich, Jeffrey & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2015. "Multi-attribute online reverse auctions: Recent research trends," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 1-9.
    2. Weimann Joachim, 2015. "Die Rolle von Verhaltensökonomik und experimenteller Forschung in Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Politikberatung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 231-252, October.
    3. Simon Cornée & Marc Jegers & Ariane Szafarz, 2018. "A Theory of Social Finance," Working Papers halshs-01717167, HAL.
    4. Simon Cornée & Marc Jegers & Ariane Szafarz & Simon Cornée & Marc Jegers & Ariane Szafarz, 2022. "Feasible Institutions of Social Finance: A Taxonomy," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 178(3), pages 280-310.
    5. Fischbacher, Urs & Fong, Christina M. & Fehr, Ernst, 2009. "Fairness, errors and the power of competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 527-545, October.
    6. Dinky Daruvala, 2009. "Would The Right Social Preference Model Please Stand Up!," Post-Print hal-00744366, HAL.
    7. Daniel Danau & Annalisa Vinella, 2012. "Optimal contract with private information on cost expectation and variability," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201228, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    8. Wolak, Frank A., 2015. "Measuring the competitiveness benefits of a transmission investment policy: The case of the Alberta electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 426-444.
    9. Christian Grund & Judith Przemeck, 2012. "Subjective performance appraisal and inequality aversion," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(17), pages 2149-2155, June.
    10. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    11. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2011. "Can contracts solve the hold-up problem? Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 186-199, September.
    12. Danau, Daniel & Vinellay, Annalisa, 2010. "Optimal contracting with private information on cost expectation and variability," SIRE Discussion Papers 2010-59, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    13. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    14. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    15. Ederer, Florian & Patacconi, Andrea, 2010. "Interpersonal comparison, status and ambition in organizations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 348-363, August.
    16. Casal, Sandro & Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2019. "The role of morals in three-player ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    17. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Reserve Prices in Auctions as Reference Points," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 637-653, April.
    18. Germán Reyes & Leonardo Gasparini, 2017. "Perceptions of Distributive Justice in Latin America During a Period of Falling Inequality," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0209, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    19. Simon Gaechter, 2006. "Conditional cooperation: Behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications," Discussion Papers 2006-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    20. Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2012. "Auctions with Anticipated Emotions: Overbidding, Underbidding, and Optimal Reserve Prices," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(3), pages 808-830, September.

    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:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-016-9471-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.