IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2510.23178.html

Feedback in Dynamic Contests: Theory and Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sumit Goel
  • Yiqing Yan
  • Jeffrey Zeidel

Abstract

We study the effect of interim feedback policies in a dynamic all-pay auction where two players bid over two stages to win a common-value prize. We show that sequential equilibrium outcomes are characterized by Cheapest Signal Equilibria, wherein stage 1 bids are such that one player bids zero while the other chooses a cheapest bid consistent with some signal. Equilibrium payoffs for both players are always zero, and the sum of expected total bids equals the value of the prize. We conduct an experiment with four natural feedback policy treatments -- full, rank, and two cutoff policies -- and while the bidding behavior deviates from equilibrium, we fail to reject the hypothesis of no treatment effect on total bids. Further, stage 1 bids induce sunk costs and head starts, and we test for the resulting sunk cost and discouragement effects in stage 2 bidding.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumit Goel & Yiqing Yan & Jeffrey Zeidel, 2025. "Feedback in Dynamic Contests: Theory and Experiment," Papers 2510.23178, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.23178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.23178
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore, 2010. "The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 435-452, August.
    2. Aoyagi, Masaki, 2010. "Information feedback in a dynamic tournament," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 242-260, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    2. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Verbeke, Willem, 2014. "Dynamic incentive effects of relative performance pay: A field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Shinya Kajitani & Keiichi Morimoto & Shiba Suzuki, 2020. "Information feedback in relative grading: Evidence from a field experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Shinya Kajitani & Keiichi Morimoto & Shiba Suzuki, 2017. "Relative Performance Information Feedback and Just-Pass Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Discussion Papers 36, Meisei University, School of Economics.
    5. Sandra Schneemann & Christian Deutscher, 2017. "Intermediate Information, Loss Aversion, And Effort: Empirical Evidence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1759-1770, October.
    6. Fischer, Mira & Sliwka, Dirk, 2018. "Confidence in knowledge or confidence in the ability to learn: An experiment on the causal effects of beliefs on motivation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 122-142.
    7. Ertac, Seda & Koçkesen, Levent & Ozdemir, Duygu, 2016. "The role of verifiability and privacy in the strategic provision of performance feedback: Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-45.
    8. Raymond, C. & Shvets, J., 2022. "Rank vs Money: Evidence from Managers," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2256, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    9. De Paola, Maria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2011. "Frequency of examinations and student achievement in a randomized experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1416-1429.
    10. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Willem Verbeke, 2015. "The Effects of Prize Spread and Noise in Elimination Tournaments: A Natural Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(3), pages 521-569.
    11. Daniel P. Gross, 2017. "Performance feedback in competitive product development," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 438-466, May.
    12. List, John A. & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Field Experiments in Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 2, pages 103-228, Elsevier.
    13. Benoît S. Y. Crutzen & Otto H. Swank & Bauke Visser, 2013. "Confidence Management: On Interpersonal Comparisons in Teams," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 744-767, December.
    14. Bobba, Matteo & Frisancho, Veronica, 2022. "Self-perceptions about academic achievement: Evidence from Mexico City," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 58-73.
    15. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Oded Stark & Wiktor Budzinski, 2021. "A social‐psychological reconstruction of Amartya Sen’s measures of inequality and social welfare," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 552-566, November.
    17. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    18. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2021. "High School Rank in Math and English and the Gender Gap in STEM," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    19. Klein, Arnd Heinrich & Schmutzler, Armin, 2017. "Optimal effort incentives in dynamic tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 199-224.
    20. Calsamiglia, Caterina & Loviglio, Annalisa, 2019. "Grading on a curve: When having good peers is not good," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2510.23178. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.