Overbidding and heterogeneous behavior in contest experiments:A meta-comment on cross-cultural differences

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2024.102210
Subhasish M. Chowdhury , Matteo M. Marini
{"title":"Overbidding and heterogeneous behavior in contest experiments:A meta-comment on cross-cultural differences","authors":"Subhasish M. Chowdhury ,&nbsp;Matteo M. Marini","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We revisit the analyses by Sheremeta (2013) and Chowdhury and Moffatt (2017), who pool experimental data from 30 Tullock contests to explain the phenomenon of overbidding. The authors find that the overbidding rate is positively related to the number of contestants and has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the relative endowment. We reuse their data and extend the analysis in the direction of cross-cultural differences, focusing on ethno-linguistic-religious fractionalization as a country-level measure. The results suggest an increased explanatory power of the model, with fractionalization negatively relating to overbidding. In addition, the extended model shows that in the one-shot game the overbidding rate is significantly higher than in the case of repeated interactions. We discuss possible interpretations of our findings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221480432400048X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We revisit the analyses by Sheremeta (2013) and Chowdhury and Moffatt (2017), who pool experimental data from 30 Tullock contests to explain the phenomenon of overbidding. The authors find that the overbidding rate is positively related to the number of contestants and has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the relative endowment. We reuse their data and extend the analysis in the direction of cross-cultural differences, focusing on ethno-linguistic-religious fractionalization as a country-level measure. The results suggest an increased explanatory power of the model, with fractionalization negatively relating to overbidding. In addition, the extended model shows that in the one-shot game the overbidding rate is significantly higher than in the case of repeated interactions. We discuss possible interpretations of our findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
竞赛实验中的过度竞价和异质行为:跨文化差异的元评论
我们重温了 Sheremeta(2013 年)以及 Chowdhury 和 Moffatt(2017 年)的分析,他们汇集了 30 场塔洛克竞赛的实验数据来解释出价过高的现象。作者发现,过高出价率与参赛者人数呈正相关,与相对禀赋呈倒 U 型关系。我们重新使用了他们的数据,并从跨文化差异的方向进行了扩展分析,将民族语言-宗教分化作为国家层面的衡量标准。结果表明,该模型的解释力有所增强,分化与出价过高呈负相关。此外,扩展模型显示,在单次博弈中,超额出价率明显高于重复互动情况下的超额出价率。我们将讨论对研究结果的可能解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
期刊最新文献
Privacy during pandemics: Attitudes to public use of personal data Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries Inflation expectations in the wake of the war in Ukraine Asking for a friend: Reminders and incentives for crowdfunding college savings ‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1