Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice

The paper provides several axiomatizations of the concept of "path independence" as applied to choice functions defined over finite sets. The axioms are discussed in terms of their relationship to "rationality" postulates and their meaning with respect to social choice models

The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect," subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations

We conduct experiments to explore the possibility that subject misconceptions, as opposed to a particular theory of preferences referred to as the “endowment effect,” account for reported gaps between willingness to pay (“WTP”) and willingness to accept (“WTA”). The literature reveals two important facts. First, there is no consensus regarding the nature or robustness of WTP-WTA gaps. Second, while experimenters are careful to control for subject misconceptions, there is no consensus about the fundamental properties of misconceptions or how to avoid them. Instead, by implementing different types of experimental controls, experimenters have revealed notions of how misconceptions arise. Experimenters have applied these controls separately or in different combinations. Such controls include ensuring subject anonymity, using incentive-compatible elicitation mechanisms, and providing subjects with practice and training on the elicitation mechanism before employing it to measure valuations. The pattern of results reported in the literature suggests that the widely differing reports of WTP-WTA gaps could be due to an incomplete science regarding subject misconceptions. We implement a “revealed theory” methodology to compensate for the lack of a theory of misconceptions. Theories implicit in experimental procedures found in the literature are at the heart of our experimental design. Thus, our approach to addressing subject misconceptions reflects an attempt to control simultaneously for all dimensions of concern over possible subject misconceptions found in the literature. To this end, our procedures modify the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism used in previous studies to elicit values. In addition, our procedures supplement commonly used procedures by providing extensive training on the elicitation mechanism before subjects provide WTP and WTA responses. Experiments were conducted using both lotteries and mugs, goods frequently used in endowment effect experiments. Using the modified procedures, we observe no gap between WTA and WTP. Therefore, our results call into question the interpretation of observed gaps as evidence of loss aversion or prospect theory. Further evidence is required before convincing interpretations of observed gaps can be advanced

The winner's curse: experiments with buyers and with sellers

This paper explores the winner's curse phenomena as it was studied experimentally by Kagel and Levin. Experiments with the winner's curse are complicated by the fact that subjects can lose money and the experimenter has only a limited means of collecting it from them. Thus subjects enjoy only limited liability which has theoretical implications for behavior. In the Kagel and Levin experiments subjects were removed from the bidders' competition after losses reached a predetermined value. This experimental procedure has unknown implications for the results so ambiguity exists about whether the winner's curse was actually observed. In this study their results were replicated in an environment in which subjects were not removed. The case in which competitors are sellers is also studied. Bankruptcy cannot be a problem in sellers' competition. In both cases the winner's curse is observed. Thus the limited liability cannot be an explanation for the phenomenon reported by Kagel and Levin. In addition the paper examines the bidding behavior of all individuals and shows that this behavior does not fit any of the tested theories either on the aggregate or individual level. The "winner's curse" did not disappear over time during the conduct of the research

Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?

Systematic asymmetries in exchange behavior have been widely interpreted as support for "endowment effect theory," an application of prospect theory positing that loss aversion and utility function kinks set by entitlements explain observed asymmetries. We experimentally test an alternative explanation, namely, that asymmetries are explained by classical preference theories finding influence through the experimental procedures typically used. Contrary to the predictions of endowment effect theory, we observe no asymmetries when we modify procedures to remove the influence of classical preference theories. When we return to traditional-type procedures, however, the asymmetries reappear. The results support explanations based in classical preference theories and reject endowment effect theory

Manipulation

[Introduction] Systematic opportunities for manipulation emerge as a by-product of the structure of all group decision processes. Theory suggests that no process is immune. The study of manipulation provides principles and insights about how parts of complex decision systems work together and how changes in one part can have broad impact. Thus, manipulation strategies are derived from many features of voting processes. Often they are the product of changes in the decision environment, including rules, procedures and influence on others, in order to achieve a specific purpose. The issues and variables go beyond individual’s own voting strategy within a specific setting and whether or not preferences are truthfully revealed – an issue often studied. Hopefully, the insights can lead to avenues for improvements to decision processes and thus, produce a better understanding of process vulnerabilities

The Principles of Exchange Rate Determination in an International Finance Experiment

This paper reports the first experiments designed to explore the behavior of economies with prominent features of international finance. Two “countries,” each with its own currency, were created. International trade could take place only through the operation of markets for currency. The law of one price and the flow of funds theory of exchange rate determination were used to produce general equilibrium models that captured much of the behavior of the economies. Prices of goods, as well as the exchange rate, evolve over time toward the predictions of the models. However, both the law of one price and purchasing power parity can be rejected for reasons that do not appear in the literature. Patterns of international trade were as predicted by the law of comparative advantage

Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes

This paper reviews a series of paradoxes that exist in the experimental economics literature. These paradoxes are instances in which otherwise accurate models of markets and social choice processes fail to capture the data of experiments. A loosely developed theory called The Discovered Preference Hypothesis is advanced in the paper as an explanation. Behavior seems to go through stages of rationality that begin with a type of myopia when faced with unfamiliar tasks. With incentives and practice, which might take the form of repeated decisions in the experimental work, (but might include play, banter, discussions with others, stages of commitment, etc.) the myopia gives way to what appears to be a. stage of more considered choices that reflect stable attitudes or preferences (as opposed to the labile attitudes identified by psychologists). Social institutions are seen as playing a role in the attainment of a third stage of rationality in which individual decisions incorporate the rationality of others, or the lack of it, in their own decisions