Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 79–98 | Cite as

The Dollar Auction Game: A Laboratory Comparison Between Individuals and Groups

  • Andrea MoroneEmail author
  • Simone Nuzzo
  • Rocco Caferra


The aim of this paper is to analyze bidders’ behavior, comparing individuals and groups’ decisions within the dollar auction framework. This game induces subjects to fall prey into the paradigm of escalation, which is driven by agents’ commitment to higher and higher bids. Whenever each participant commits himself to a bid, the lower bidder, motivated by the wish to win as well as to defend his prior investment, finds it in his best interest to place a higher bid to overcome his opponent. The latter mechanism may lead subjects to overbid. We find that the Nash equilibrium of the game is only rarely attained. Second, we detect clean evidence that groups’ decisions are, on average, superior to individuals’ decisions. Learning over time is clearly evident, leading individuals to perform nearly as good as groups in the final rounds of the game.


Escalation Winner’s curse Dollar auction game 

JEL Classification

C91 C92 D71 D81 



Funding was provided by Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro (IT) (Progetto Idea).


  1. Adams R, Ferreira D (2010) Moderation in groups: evidence from betting on ice break-ups in Alaska. Rev Econ Stud 77(3):882–913Google Scholar
  2. Arkes HR, Blumer C (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 35(1):124–140Google Scholar
  3. Blinder AS, Morgan J (2005) Are two heads better than one? monetary policy by committee. J Money Credit Bank 37(5):789–812Google Scholar
  4. Bornstein G, Kugler T, Ziegelmeyer A (2004) Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: are groups more “rational” players? J Exp Soc Psychol 40(5):599–605Google Scholar
  5. Briggs A (2013) The conflict of laws. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Casari M, Jackson C, Zhang J (2015) Same process, different outcomes: group performance in an acquiring a company experiment. Exp Econ 19(4):764–791Google Scholar
  7. Charness G, Sutter M (2012) Groups make better self-interested decisions. J Econ Perspect 26(3):157–176Google Scholar
  8. Cooper DJ, Kagel JH (2005) Are two heads better than one? team versus individual play in signaling games. Am Econ Rev 95(3):477–509Google Scholar
  9. Cooper DJ, Kagel JH (2009) Equilibrium selection in signaling games with teams: forward induction or faster adaptive learning? Res Econ 63(4):216–224Google Scholar
  10. Fischbacher U (2007) Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10(2):171–178Google Scholar
  11. Fréchette GR (2012) Session-effects in the laboratory. Exp Econ 15(3):485–498Google Scholar
  12. Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, vol 349. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291Google Scholar
  14. Kerr NL, Maccoun RJ, Kramer GP (1996) Bias in judgment: comparing individuals and groups. Psychol Rev 103(4):687–719Google Scholar
  15. Kocher MC, Sutter M (2005) The decision maker matters: individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty contest games. Econ J 115(500):200–223Google Scholar
  16. Kocher M, Strauss S, Sutter M (2006) Individual or team decision-making—causes and consequences of self-selection. Games Econ Behav 56(2):259–270Google Scholar
  17. Leavitt H (1975) Suppose we took groups seriously. In: Cass EL, Zimmer FG (eds) Man and work in society. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  18. Migheli M (2012) It is not just escalation: the one dollar game revisited. J Behav Exp Econ 41(4):434–438Google Scholar
  19. Morone A, Morone P (2008) Guessing games and people behaviours: what can we learn? In: Abdellaoui M, Hey JD (eds) Advances in decision making under risk and uncertainty. Springer, Berlin, pp 205–217Google Scholar
  20. Morone A, Morone P (2010) Boundary and interior equilibria: what drives convergence in a ‘beauty contest’? Econ Bull 30(3):2097–2106Google Scholar
  21. Morone A, Morone P (2014) Estimating individual and group preference functionals using experimental data. Theor Decis 77(3):403–422Google Scholar
  22. Morone A, Morone P, Germani AR (2014) Individual and group behavior in the traveler’s dilemma: an experimental study. J Behav Exp Econ 49(3):1–7Google Scholar
  23. Murnighan JK (2002) A very extreme case of the dollar auction. J Manag Educ 26(1):56–69Google Scholar
  24. O’Neill B (1986) International escalation and the dollar auction. J Confl Resolut 30(1):33–50Google Scholar
  25. O’Neill TA, Hancock SE, Zivkov K, Larson NL, Law SJ (2015) Team decision making in virtual and face-to-face environments. Group Decis Negot 23(1):1–26Google Scholar
  26. Shubik M (1971) The dollar auction game: a paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalation. J Confl Resolut 15(1):109–111Google Scholar
  27. Shupp RS, Williams AW (2008) Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. Econ J 118(525):258–283Google Scholar
  28. Staw BM (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Acad Manag Rev 6(4):577–587Google Scholar
  29. Sutter M (2005) Are four heads better than two? an experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Econ Lett 88(1):41–46Google Scholar
  30. Sutter M, Kocher MG, Strauss S (2009) Individuals and teams in auctions. Oxf Econ Pap 61(2):380–394Google Scholar
  31. Teger AI (1980) Too much invested to quit. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Temerario T (2014) Individual and group behaviour toward risk: a short survey. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  33. Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1(1):39–60Google Scholar
  34. Thaler RH (1988) Anomalies: the winner’s curse. J Econ Perspect 2(1):191–202Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia, Management e Diritto dell’ImpresaUniversità degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro”BariItaly

Personalised recommendations