IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2009-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Siegfried Berninghaus

    ()

  • Werner G?th

    ()

  • M. Vittoria Levati

    ()

  • Jianying Qiu

    ()

Abstract

In a duopoly market, aspiration levels express how much sellers want to earn given their expectations about the other?s behavior. We augment the sellers? decision task by eliciting their profit aspiration. In a first experimental phase, whenever satisficing is not possible, sales choices, point beliefs, or aspiration levels have to be adapted. This allows us to investigate which of these three aspects individuals revise more often. In a second phase, testing the absorption of satisficing, participants are free to select non-satisficing sales profiles. The results reveal that most participants are satisficers who tend to adjust aspiration levels if they cannot be satisfied.

Suggested Citation

  • Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner G?th & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2009. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Working Papers 2009-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
  • Handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2009-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.uibk.ac.at/downloads/c4041030/wpaper/2009-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    2. Robert Aumann & Adam Brandenburger, 2014. "Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 5, pages 113-136 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Werner Güth & Gerlinde Fellner & Ev Martin, 2006. "Satisficing or Optimizing? - An Experimental Study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-11, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    4. Napel, Stefan, 2003. "Aspiration adaptation in the ultimatum minigame," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 86-106, April.
    5. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2001. "Stackelberg Beats Cournot: On Collusion and Efficiency in Experimental Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 749-765, October.
    6. Kim, Youngse, 2002. "Satisficing and fairness in ultimatum bargaining game experiments," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(03), pages 235-247, December.
    7. Rami Zwick & Amnon Rapoport & Alison King Chung Lo & A. V. Muthukrishnan, 2003. "Consumer Sequential Search: Not Enough or Too Much?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 503-519, October.
    8. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, January.
    9. Holt, Charles A, 1985. "An Experimental Test of the Consistent-Conjectures Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 314-325, June.
    10. Werner G³th & Hartmut Kliemt, 2004. "Bounded Rationality and Theory Absorption," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 21, pages 521-541.
    11. Gerlinde Fellner & Werner Güth & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Satisficing in Financial Decision Making A Theoretical and Experimental Attempt to Explore Bounded Rationality," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-23, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Youngse Kim, 1999. "Satisficing and optimality in 2þ2 common interest games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(2), pages 365-375.
    14. Lilly, Gregory, 1994. "Bounded rationality : A Simon-like explication," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 205-230, January.
    15. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    16. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2006. "Is Satisficing Absorbable? - An Experimental Study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    17. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    18. Roy Radner, 1975. "A Behavioral Model of Cost Reduction," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(1), pages 196-215, Spring.
    19. van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, 1988. "Maximising and satisficing opposite or equivalent concepts?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 289-313, September.
    20. Bendor Jonathan & Mookherjee Dilip & Ray Debraj, 2001. "Reinforcement Learning in Repeated Interaction Games," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-44, March.
    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. Werner Güth, 2007. "A Non-Bayesian Approach to (Un)Bounded Rationality," Jena Economic Research Papers 2007-035, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
    3. Güth, Werner & Vittoria Levati, M. & Ploner, Matteo, 2010. "Satisficing in strategic environments: A theoretical approach and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 554-561, October.
    4. Werner Güth, 2009. "Optimal gelaufen, einfach zufrieden oder unüberlegt gehandelt? Zur Theorie (un)eingeschränkt rationalen Entscheidens," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(s1), pages 75-100, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Satisficing behavior; Duopoly; Profit aspiration; Theory absorption;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection

    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:inn:wpaper:2009-14. 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: (Janette Walde). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.