IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Best-of-Three Contests: Experimental Evidence

  • Shakun D. Mago


    (Department of Economics, Robins School of Business, University of Richmond)

  • Roman Sheremeta

    (Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University)

  • Andrew Yates

    (Department of Economics, Robins School of Business, University of Richmond)

We conduct an experimental analysis of a best-of-three Tullock contest. Intermediate prizes lead to higher efforts, while increasing the role of luck (as opposed to effort) leads to lower efforts. Both intermediate prizes and luck reduce the probability of contest ending in two rounds. The patterns of players? efforts and the probability that a contest ends in two rounds is consistent with „strategic momentum?, i.e. momentum generated due to strategic incentives inherent in the contest. We do not find evidence for „psychological momentum?, i.e. momentum which emerges when winning affects players? confidence. Similar to previous studies of contests, we find significantly higher efforts than predicted and strong heterogeneity in effort between subjects.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Chapman University, Economic Science Institute in its series Working Papers with number 10-24.

in new window

Length: 31 pages
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:10-24
Contact details of provider: Postal: One University Drive, Orange, CA 92866
Phone: (714) 628-2830
Fax: (714) 628-2881
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:10-24. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.