Best-of-Three Contests: Experimental Evidence

We conduct an experimental analysis of a best-of-three Tullock contest. Intermediate prizes lead to higher efforts, while increasing the role of luck (as opposed to effort) leads to lower efforts. Both intermediate prizes and luck reduce the probability of contest ending in two rounds. The patterns of players? efforts and the probability that a contest ends in two rounds is consistent with „strategic momentum?, i.e. momentum generated due to strategic incentives inherent in the contest. We do not find evidence for „psychological momentum?, i.e. momentum which emerges when winning affects players? confidence. Similar to previous studies of contests, we find significantly higher efforts than predicted and strong heterogeneity in effort between subjects.best-of-three contest, experiments, strategic momentum, psychological momentum

Multi-Battle Contests: An Experimental Study

We examine behavior of subjects in simultaneous and sequential multi-battle contests, where each individual battle is modeled as an all-pay auction with complete information. In simultaneous best-of-three contests, subjects are predicted to make positive bids in all three battles, but we find that subjects often make positive bids in only two battles. In sequential contests, theory predicts sizable bids in the first battle and no bids in the subsequent battles. Contrary to this prediction, subjects significantly underbid in the first battle and overbid in subsequent battles. Consequently, instead of always ending in the second battle, contests often proceeds to the third battle. Finally, although the aggregate bid in simultaneous contests is similar to that in sequential contests, in both settings, subjects make higher aggregate bids than predicted. The observed behavior of subjects can be rationalized by a combination of multi-dimensional iterative reasoning and a non-monetary utility of winning

New Hampshire Effect: Behavior in Sequential and Simultaneous Multi-Battle Contests

Sequential multi-battle contests are predicted to induce lower expenditure than simultaneous contests. This prediction is a result of a “New Hampshire Effect” – a strategic advantage created by the winner of the first battle. Although our laboratory study provides evidence for the New Hampshire Effect, we find that sequential contests generate significantly higher (not lower) expenditure than simultaneous contests. This is mainly because in sequential contests, there is significant over-expenditure in all battles. We suggest sunk cost fallacy and utility of winning as two complementary explanations for this behavior and provide supporting evidence

Best-of-Three Contests: Experimental Evidence

We conduct an experimental analysis of a best-of-three Tullock contest. Intermediate prizes lead to higher efforts, while increasing the role of luck (as opposed to effort) leads to lower efforts. Both intermediate prizes and luck reduce the probability of contest ending in two rounds. The patterns of players‟ efforts and the probability that a contest ends in two rounds is consistent with „strategic momentum‟, i.e. momentum generated due to strategic incentives inherent in the contest. We do not find evidence for „psychological momentum‟, i.e. momentum which emerges when winning affects players‟ confidence. Similar to previous studies of contests, we find significantly higher efforts than predicted and strong heterogeneity in effort between subjects

Multi-Battle Contests: An Experimental Study

This study examines behavior of subjects in simultaneous and sequential multi-battle contests. In simultaneous contests, subjects make positive bids in each battle 80% of the time and bids fall within the predicted boundaries. However, 35% of the time subjects make positive bids in only two, instead of all three, battles and they significantly overuse moderately high bids. In sequential contests, theory predicts sizable bids in the first battle and no bids in the subsequent battles. Contrary to this prediction, subjects significantly underbid in the first battle and overbid in subsequent battles. Consequently, instead of always ending in the second battle, contest proceeds to the third battle 38% of the time. Finally, in both simultaneous and sequential settings, subjects make higher aggregate bids than predicted resulting in negative expected payoffs

Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations

We examine how sharing information about outside obligations impacts wage negotiations. We consider an ‘employee’ with an outside obligation, whose performance determines the surplus and an ‘employer’ with the power-to-give, who determines the employee's wage. We find that wage offers increase with obligation amounts when the level of obligation is known. However, the employer simply redistributes surplus from employees with no obligations to those with higher obligations. We find no evidence of gender bias in wage offers, similar to other ultimatum games. Our experiment provides a potential explanation for some of the gender wage gap and shows how seemingly equitable policies may perpetuate inequities among employees.International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics36 month embargo; first published 15 February 2024This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

COSTLY BUYER SEARCH IN LABORATORY MARKETS WITH SELLER ADVERTISING -super-*

In this experiment, sellers simultaneously choose prices and advertising strategies. Buyers either purchase at an advertised price or search sequentially for other prices. In the unique symmetric equilibrium, sellers charge a high unadvertised price or advertise a price chosen from a lower interval. Increases in search or advertising costs raise equilibrium prices and affect equilibrium advertising intensity. Empirical results are consistent with most comparative static predictions. Sellers, however, price much lower and advertise more intensely than predicted. Consequently, market outcomes more closely resemble a perfect information, Bertrand-like equilibrium than the imperfect information, mixed strategy equilibrium with significant seller market power. Copyright 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and the Editorial Board of The Journal of Industrial Economics.