在拍卖实验中,人类卖家的缺席是否会对竞价行为产生偏见?

Björn Bartling, T. Gesche, N. Netzer
{"title":"在拍卖实验中,人类卖家的缺席是否会对竞价行为产生偏见?","authors":"Björn Bartling, T. Gesche, N. Netzer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2770532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper studies the impact of human subjects in the role of a seller on bidding in experimental second-price auctions. Overbidding is a robust finding in second-price auctions, and spite among bidders has been advanced as an explanation. If spite extends to the seller, then the absence of human sellers who receive the auction revenue may bias upwards the bidding behavior in existing experimental auctions. We derive the equilibrium bidding function in a model where bidders have preferences regarding both the payoffs of other bidders and the seller’s revenue. Overbidding is optimal when buyers are spiteful only towards other buyers. However, optimal bids are lower and potentially even truthful when spite extends to the seller. We experimentally test the model predictions by exogenously varying the presence of human subjects in the roles of the seller and competing bidders. We do not detect a systematic effect of the presence of a human seller on overbidding. We conclude that overbidding is not an artefact of the standard experimental implementation of second-price auctions in which human sellers are absent.","PeriodicalId":91563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Economic Science Association","volume":"3 1","pages":"44-61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the absence of human sellers bias bidding behavior in auction experiments?\",\"authors\":\"Björn Bartling, T. Gesche, N. Netzer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2770532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper studies the impact of human subjects in the role of a seller on bidding in experimental second-price auctions. Overbidding is a robust finding in second-price auctions, and spite among bidders has been advanced as an explanation. If spite extends to the seller, then the absence of human sellers who receive the auction revenue may bias upwards the bidding behavior in existing experimental auctions. We derive the equilibrium bidding function in a model where bidders have preferences regarding both the payoffs of other bidders and the seller’s revenue. Overbidding is optimal when buyers are spiteful only towards other buyers. However, optimal bids are lower and potentially even truthful when spite extends to the seller. We experimentally test the model predictions by exogenously varying the presence of human subjects in the roles of the seller and competing bidders. We do not detect a systematic effect of the presence of a human seller on overbidding. We conclude that overbidding is not an artefact of the standard experimental implementation of second-price auctions in which human sellers are absent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Economic Science Association\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"44-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Economic Science Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770532\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Economic Science Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文研究了在实验性二次价格拍卖中,卖方角色中的人类主体对出价的影响。在二次价格拍卖中,过度出价是一个强有力的发现,竞标者之间的怨恨已经被提出作为一种解释。如果怨恨延伸到卖家,那么缺乏获得拍卖收入的人类卖家可能会使现有实验拍卖中的出价行为向上倾斜。我们在一个模型中推导了均衡投标函数,其中投标人对其他投标人的收益和卖方的收入都有偏好。当买家只对其他买家怀有恶意时,过度出价是最优的。然而,当恶意延伸到卖方时,最优出价更低,甚至可能是真实的。我们通过外源性地改变人类主体在卖方和竞标者角色中的存在来实验测试模型预测。我们没有发现人类卖家的存在对过度出价的系统性影响。我们得出的结论是,在没有人类卖家的情况下,过度出价并不是第二价格拍卖标准实验实施的产物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does the absence of human sellers bias bidding behavior in auction experiments?
This paper studies the impact of human subjects in the role of a seller on bidding in experimental second-price auctions. Overbidding is a robust finding in second-price auctions, and spite among bidders has been advanced as an explanation. If spite extends to the seller, then the absence of human sellers who receive the auction revenue may bias upwards the bidding behavior in existing experimental auctions. We derive the equilibrium bidding function in a model where bidders have preferences regarding both the payoffs of other bidders and the seller’s revenue. Overbidding is optimal when buyers are spiteful only towards other buyers. However, optimal bids are lower and potentially even truthful when spite extends to the seller. We experimentally test the model predictions by exogenously varying the presence of human subjects in the roles of the seller and competing bidders. We do not detect a systematic effect of the presence of a human seller on overbidding. We conclude that overbidding is not an artefact of the standard experimental implementation of second-price auctions in which human sellers are absent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The seeds of success: the pivotal role of first round cooperation in public goods games Indefinitely repeated contests with incumbency advantage Conditional cooperation and group size: experimental evidence from a public good game Overconfidence: the roles of gender, public observability and incentives Who’s who: how uncertainty about the favored group affects outcomes of affirmative action
×
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