Endowment Effects in Contests
We design an experiment to test if the manner in which subjects receive the endowment has any bearing on the amount of overbidding in contests. We find that overbidding is significantly higher when subjects are given a large per-experiment endowment rather than when the endowment is given per-period. Risk-aversion and non-monetary utility of winning play important roles in explaining our findings.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: One University Drive, Orange, CA 92866|
Phone: (714) 628-2830
Fax: (714) 628-2881
Web page: http://www.chapman.edu/esi/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-29, May.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Roman M. Sheremeta, 2009.
"Experimental Comparison of Multi-Stage and One-Stage Contests,"
09-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- 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.
- Sheremeta, Roman, 2009. "Experimental Comparison of Multi-Stage and One-Stage Contests," MPRA Paper 49884, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Roman M. Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2009.
"Can Groups Solve the Problem of Over-Bidding in Contests,"
09-09, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- Roman Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2010. "Can groups solve the problem of over-bidding in contests?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 175-197, July.
- Sheremeta, Roman & Zhang, Jingjing, 2009. "Can Groups Solve the Problem of Over-Bidding in Contests?," MPRA Paper 49885, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Roman M. Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2009. "Can Groups Solve the Problem of Overbidding in Contests?," Department of Economics Working Papers 2009-05, McMaster University.
- Hillman, Arye L & Katz, Eliakim, 1984. "Risk-Averse Rent Seekers and the Social Cost of Monopoly Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 94(373), pages 104-10, March.
- Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Yasar Barut & Dan Kovenock & Charles N. Noussair, 2002.
"A Comparison of Multiple-Unit All-Pay and Winner-Pay Auctions Under Incomplete Information,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 675-708, August.
- Yasar Barut & Dan Kovenock & Charles Noussair, 1999. "A Comparison of Multiple-Unit All-Pay and Winner-Pay Auctions Under Incomplete Information," CIG Working Papers FS IV 99-09, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Merlo, Antonio & Schotter, Andrew, 1999.
"A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 25-54, July.
- Merlo, A. & Schotter, A., 1995. "A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments," Working Papers 95-32, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Noussair, Charles & Silver, Jonathon, 2006. "Behavior in all-pay auctions with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 189-206, April.
- Davis, Douglas D & Reilly, Robert J, 1998.
"Do Too Many Cooks Always Spoil the Stew? An Experimental Analysis of Rent-Seeking and the Role of a Strategic Buyer,"
Springer, vol. 95(1-2), pages 89-115, April.
- Douglas Davis & Robert Reilly, 1998. "Do too many cooks always spoil the stew? An experimental analysis of rent-seeking and the role of a strategic buyer," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 89-115, April.
- Potters, Jan & de Vries, Casper G. & van Winden, Frans, 1998.
"An experimental examination of rational rent-seeking,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 783-800, November.
- Potters, J.J.M. & de Vries, C.G. & van Winden, F.A.A.M., 1998. "An experimental examination of rational rentseeking," Other publications TiSEM 496ad30e-8453-4c83-a5e1-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Roman M. Sheremeta, 2009.
"Contest Design: An Experimental Investigation,"
09-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- Anderson, Lisa R & Stafford, Sarah L, 2003. "An Experimental Analysis of Rent Seeking under Varying Competitive Conditions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 115(1-2), pages 199-216, April.
- Gneezy, Uri & Smorodinsky, Rann, 2006. "All-pay auctions--an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 255-275, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:09-07. 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: (Megan Luetje)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.