IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Selection into auctions for risky and ambiguous prospects

  • Martin G. Kocher

    (School of Economics, University of East Anglia)

  • Stefan T. Trautmann

    (Tilburg University)

We study experimentally the selection into first-price sealed-bid auctions for a risky or an ambiguous prospect. Most subjects chose to submit a bid for the risky prospect, leading to thinner markets for the ambiguous prospect. Transaction prices for both prospects were equal although subjects expected the ambiguous markets to be smaller. Evidence of a positive correlation between risk and ambiguity aversion suggests that the ambiguous markets were populated by relatively risk tolerant bidders. A control experiment with selection in a simple choice task shows that subjects correctly anticipate the effects of selection on market size and risk attitudes.

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: http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/166500/0/CBESS-10-06.pdf
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. in its series Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) with number 10-06.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 01 Apr 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:uea:wcbess:10-06
Contact details of provider: Postal: Norwich NR4 7TI
Phone: 44 1603 591131
Fax: +44(0)1603 4562592
Web page: http://www.uea.ac.uk/eco/

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Postal: Helen Chapman, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Email:


References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Axel Ockenfels & Reinhard Selten, 2002. "Impulse Balance Equilibrium and Feedback in First Price Auctions," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-12, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
  2. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. " Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-70, October.
  3. Jamison, Julian & Karlan, Dean S., 2009. "When curiosity kills the profits: An experimental examination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 830-840, July.
  4. Neugebauer, Tibor & Selten, Reinhard, 2006. "Individual behavior of first-price auctions: The importance of information feedback in computerized experimental markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 183-204, January.
  5. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, 01.
  6. Chen, Yan & Katuscak, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2007. "Sealed bid auctions with ambiguity: Theory and experiments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 513-535, September.
  7. Cox, James C. & Smith, Vernon L. & Walker, James M., 1982. "Auction market theory of heterogeneous bidders," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 319-325.
  8. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Salmon, Tim, 2002. "Bidder preferences among auction institutions," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,86, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  9. Janssen, Maarten C.W. & Karamychev, Vladimir A., 2007. "Selection effects in auctions for monopoly rights," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 576-582, May.
  10. Fox, Craig R & Tversky, Amos, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603, August.
  11. Grimm, Veronika & Schmidt, Ulrich, 1998. "Equilibrium bidding without the independence axiom: A graphical analysis," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,40, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  12. Ganesh Iyer & Amit Pazgal, 2008. "Procurement bidding with restrictions," Quantitative Marketing and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 177-204, June.
  13. Peter Eso & Lucy White, 2001. "Precautionary Bidding in Auctions," Discussion Papers 1331, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  14. Rocco Huang, 2005. "Distance and Trade: Disentangling unfamiliarity effects and transport cost effects," International Trade 0511010, EconWPA.
  15. Salo, Ahti A & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion in First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 123-37, September.
  16. Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. " Experimental Markets for Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 265-99, September.
  17. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  18. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, . "Value versus Growth: The International Evidence," CRSP working papers 341, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
  19. Halevy, Yoram, 2005. "Ellsberg Revisited: an Experimental Study," Microeconomics.ca working papers halevy-05-07-26-11-51-13, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 25 Feb 2014.
  20. Offerman, T.J.S. & Potters, J.J.M., 2006. "Does auctioning of entry licences induce collusions? An experimental study," Other publications TiSEM d72095fa-6c74-49a2-8c82-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  21. 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.
  22. Janssen, Maarten C.W., 2006. "Auctions as coordination devices," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 517-532, April.
  23. Uppal, Raman & Wang, Tan, 2002. "Model Misspecification and Under-Diversification," CEPR Discussion Papers 3304, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  24. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
  25. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2002. "Information disclosure in auctions: an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 431-444, August.
  26. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. " Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 265-72, September.
  27. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1985. "Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 386-90, May.
  28. David Easley & Maureen O'Hara, 2009. "Ambiguity and Nonparticipation: The Role of Regulation," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(5), pages 1817-1843, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:uea:wcbess:10-06. 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: (Alasdair Brown)

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.