4.6 Article

Learning and the possibility of losing own money reduce overbidding: Delayed payment in experimental auctions

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213568

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Tyson Endowment Fund in Food Policy Economics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we designed a delayed payment mechanism in laboratory second price auctions (SPAs), under which subjects received a cash endowment two weeks after the experiment day and had to use their own money to pay the experimental losses (if any) on the experiment day. We compared the effect of delayed payment on overbidding in the induced value SPAs with the conventional on-the-spot payment mechanism where the subjects received an endowment on the experiment day, and the prepaid mechanism where the subjects received the endowment two weeks before the experiment day. Each auction was repeated for 20 rounds to provide sufficient learning opportunities to the bidders. Our results showed that bids converged to the corresponding values over auction rounds and overbidding was reduced by previous losses, consistently with the adaptive learning theory. Moreover, overbidding seems to depend significantly on bidders' cash holding, and the magnitude of the payment treatment effects depends crucially on liquidity constraints. In the presence of liquidity constraints, both delayed and prepaid payment mechanisms reduced overbidding, while in the absence of liquidity constraints, only the delayed endowment mechanism reduced overbidding. Furthermore, when controlling the degree of liquidity constraints, subjects with higher GPAs were less likely to overbid and the delayed endowment mechanism significantly reduced overbidding compared to other payment mechanisms. These results suggest that overbidding in SPAs might be caused by bounded rationality and could be reduced by adaptive learning especially when overbidding becomes truly costly to subjects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available