The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Auctions (Experiments)

  • John H. Kagel
  • Dan Levin
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2671

Abstract

Experiments permit rigorous investigations of auction theory generating a dialogue with theorists and policymakers. In single-unit private value auctions the revenue equivalence theorem fails, but the comparative static predictions of Nash bidding theory hold, indicating that bidders are responsive to the primary economic forces present in the theory. In single-unit common value auctions inexperienced bidders invariably suffer from a ‘winner’s curse’, and the comparative static predictions of the theory fail, but more experienced bidders do substantially better. Recent research dealing with Internet auctions, mixed private and common value auctions and multiunit demand auctions are surveyed as well.

Keywords

Adverse selection Auctions Auctions (experiments) Becker–DeGroot–Marshak procedure Common value auctions Dutch auctions English auctions English clock auctions First-price auctions Independent private values model Internet auctions Learning direction theory Mechanism design Multi-unit demand auctions Revenue equivalence theorem Risk aversion Risk-neutral Nash equilibrium Second-price auctions Vickrey auction Winner’s curse 

JEL Classification

C9 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Ariely, D., A. Ockenfels, and A.E. Roth. 2005. An experimental analysis of ending rules in internet auctions. RAND Journal of Economics 36: 890–907.Google Scholar
  2. Avery, C., and J.H. Kagel. 1997. Second-price auctions with asymmetric payoffs: An experimental investigation. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6: 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battalio, R.C., C.A. Kogut, and D.J. Meyer. 1990. Individual and market bidding in a Vickrey first-price auction: Varying market size and information. In Advances in behavioral economics, vol. 2, ed. L. Green and J.H. Kagel. Norwood: Alex.Google Scholar
  4. Bazeramn, M.H., and W.F. Samuelson. 1983. I won the auction but don’t want the prize. Journal of Conflict Resolution 27: 618–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casari, M., J.C. Ham, and J.H. Kagel. 2007. Selection bias, demographic effects and ability effects in common value auction experiments. American Economic Review 97: 1278–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coppinger, V.M., V.L. Smith, and J.A. Titus. 1980. Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch and sealed-bid auctions. Economic Inquiry 43: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, J., B. Roberson, and V.L. Smith. 1982. Theory and behavior of single object auctions. In Research in experimental economics, ed. V.L. Smith. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dorsey, R., and L. Razzolini. 2003. Explaining overbidding in first price auctions using controlled lotteries. Experimental Economics 6: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer, D., J.H. Kagel, and D. Levin. 1989a. Resolving uncertainty about the number of bidders in independent private-value auctions: An experimental analysis. RAND Journal of Economics 20: 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyer, D., J.H. Kagel, and D. Levin. 1989b. A comparison of naive and experienced bidders in common value offer auctions: A laboratory analysis. Economic Journal 99: 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garratt, R., M. Walker, and J. Wooders. 2004. Behavior in second-price auctions by highly experienced eBay buyers and sellers, Working paper, vol. 1181. Santa Barbara: Department of Economics, UC.Google Scholar
  12. Goeree, J.K., and T. Offerman. 2002. Efficiency in auctions with private and common values: An experimental study. American Economic Review 92: 625–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goeree, J.K., C.A. Holt, and J. O. Ledyard. 2006. An experimental comparison of the FCC’s combinatorial and non-combinatorial simultaneous multiple round auctions. Prepared for the wireless telecommunications bureau of the federal communications commission. Online. Available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/ data/papersAndStudies/fcc_final_report_071206.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2007.
  14. Holt Jr., C.A., and R. Sherman. 1994. The loser’s curse and bidder’s bias. American Economic Review 84: 642–652.Google Scholar
  15. Isaac, M., and D. James. 2000. Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 1986. The winner’s curse and public information in common value auctions. American Economic Review 76: 894–920.Google Scholar
  17. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 1991. The winner’s curse and public information in common value auctions: Reply. American Economic Review 81: 362–369.Google Scholar
  18. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 1993. Independent private value auctions: Bidder behavior in first-, second- and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. Economic Journal 103: 868–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 1999. Common value auctions with insider information. Econometrica 67: 1219–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 2001. Behavior in multi-unit demand auctions: Experiments with uniform price and dynamic Vickrey auctions. Econometrica 69: 413–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kagel, J.H., and D. Levin. 2002. Bidding in common value auctions: A survey of experimental research. In Common value auctions and the Winner’s curse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kagel, J.H. and D. Levin. 2006. Implementing efficient multi-object auction institutions: An experimental study of the performance of boundedly rational agents. Mimeo, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Kagel, J.H., and J.F. Richard. 2001. Super-experienced bidders in first-price common value auctions: rules of thumb, Nash equilibrium bidding and the winner’s curse. Review of Economics and Statistics 83: 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kagel, J.H., R.M. Harstad, and D. Levin. 1987. Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study. Econometrica 55: 1275–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kagel, J.H., D. Levin, R. Battalio, and D.J. Meyer. 1989. First-price common value auctions: Bidder behavior and the winner’s curse. Economic Inquiry 27: 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klemperer, P. 1998. Auctions with almost common values: The ‘wallet game’ and its applications. European Economic Review 42: 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwasnica, A.M., J.O. Ledyard, D. Porter, and C. DeMartini. 2005. A new and improved design for multiobject iterative auctions. Management Science 51: 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, D., J.H. Kagel, and J.F. Richard. 1996. Revenue effects and information processing in English common value auctions. American Economic Review 86: 442–460.Google Scholar
  29. Lind, B., and C.R. Plott. 1991. The winner’s curse: Experiments with buyers and with sellers. American Economic Review 81: 335–346.Google Scholar
  30. Lucking-Reiley, D. 1999. Using field experiments to test equivalence between auction formats: Magic on the internet. American Economic Review 89: 1062–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neugebauer, T., and R. Selten. 2006. Individual behavior of first-price auctions: the importance of information feedback in computerized experimental markets. Games and Economic Behavior 54: 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter, D., S. Rassenti, A. Roopnarine, and V. Smith. 2003. Combinatorial auction design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 11153–11157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose, S.L. and J.K Kagel. 2005. Bidding in almost common value auctions: An experiment, mimeographed. Mimeo, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  34. Rose, S.L. and D. Levin. 2005. An experimental investigation of the explosive effect in common value auctions. Mimeo, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, A.E., and A. Ockenfels. 2002. Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review 92: 1093–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salmon, T.C., and B.J. Wilson. 2008. Second chance offers versus sequential auctions: Theory and behavior. Economic Theory 34: 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Kagel
    • 1
  • Dan Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.