Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T11:04:17.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An experimental study of bidding in contests of incomplete information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Philip Brookins  and
Dmitry Ryvkin
Philip Brookins
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, 32306-2180 Tallahassee, FL, USA
Dmitry Ryvkin*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, 32306-2180 Tallahassee, FL, USA
*
dryvkin@fsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many contest situations, such as R&D competition and rent seeking, participants’ costs are private information. We report the results of an experimental study of bidding in contests under different information and symmetry conditions about players’ costs of effort. The theory predicts qualitatively different comparative statics between bids under complete and incomplete information in contests of two and more than two players. We use a 2×3 experimental design, (n=2, n=4)×(symmetric complete information, asymmetric complete information, incomplete information), to test the theoretical predictions. We find the comparative statics of bids across the information and symmetry conditions, and the qualitative differences in comparative statics across group sizes, in partial agreement with the theory.

Keywords

ContestIncomplete informationBiddingExperiment

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D72: Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games D82: Asymmetric and Private Information • Mechanism Design

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 245 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-013-9365-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Amaldoss, W., Rapoport, A., & Columbus, F. (2009). Excessive expenditure in two-stage contests: theory and experimental evidence. Game theory: strategies, equilibria, and theorems, Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Amegashie, J., & Kutsoati, E. (2007). (Non)intervention in intra-state conflicts. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 754–767. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2006.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amegashie, J., Cadsby, C., & Song, Y. (2007). Competitive burnout: theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 59, 213–239. 10.1016/j.geb.2006.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L., & Stafford, S. (2003). An experimental analysis of rent seeking under varying competitive conditions. Public Choice, 115, 199–216. 10.1023/A:1022817613815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S., Goeree, J., & Holt, C. (1998). Rent seeking with bounded rationality: an analysis of the all-pay auction. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 828–853. 10.1086/250031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berentsen, A., Bruegger, E., & Loertscher, S. (2008). On cheating, doping and whistle blowing. European Journal of Political Economy, 24, 415–436. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2007.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bognanno, M. (2001). Corporate tournaments. Journal of Labour Economics, 19, 290–315. 10.1086/319562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueggen, A., & Strobel, M. (2007). Real effort versus chosen effort in experiments. Economics Letters, 96, 232–236. 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., Masters, W., & Sheremeta, R. (2011). Winner-take-all and proportional-prize contests: theory and experimental results. Chapman University, ESI working paper.Google Scholar
Chang, Y., Potter, J., & Sanders, S. (2007). War and peace: third-party intervention in conflict. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 954–974. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2006.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, S., Sheremeta, R., & Turocy, T. (2012). Overdissipation and convergence in rent-seeking experiments: Cost structure and prize allocation rules. SSRN working paper available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2050545.Google Scholar
Congleton, R., Hillman, A., & Konrad, K. (2008). 40 years of research on rent seeking, vols 1, 2, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cornes, R., & Hartley, R. (2012). Risk aversion in symmetric and asymmetric contests. Economic Theory, 51, 245–275. 10.1007/s00199-009-0490-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P., & Stiglitz, J. (1980). Uncertainty, industrial structure and the speed of R&D. Bell Journal of Economics, 11, 1–28. 10.2307/3003398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D., & Sheremeta, R. (2012). A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. SSRN working paper available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2154022.Google Scholar
Davis, D., & Reilly, R. (1998). Do many cooks always spoil the stew? An experimental analysis of rent seeking and the role of a strategic buyer. Public Choice, 95, 89–115. 10.1023/A:1004916624881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenberg, R., & Bognanno, M. (1990). Do tournaments have incentive effects?. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1307–1324. 10.1086/261736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, M. (2008). Rent-seeking contests with incomplete information. Public Choice, 135, 225–236. 10.1007/s11127-007-9255-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, M. (2009). An experimental investigation of asymmetric contests. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 582–591. 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2009.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U., & Smorodinsky, R. (2006). All-pay auctions—an experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 255–275. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., Holt, C., & Palfrey, T. (2002). Quantal response equilibrium and overbidding in private-value auctions. Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 247–272. 10.1006/jeth.2001.2914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. Kremer, K., & Macho, V. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63, Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung 79–93.Google Scholar
Harstad, R. (1995). Privately informed seekers of an uncertain rent. Public Choice, 83, 81–93. 10.1007/BF01047685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, T., & Shogren, J. (1998). Asymmetric information contests. European Journal of Political Economy, 14, 645–665. 10.1016/S0176-2680(98)00030-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, T., & Shogren, J. (1998). Effort levels in a Cournot-Nash contest with asymmetric information. Journal of Public Economics, 69, 195–210. 10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00026-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C., & Laury, S. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, P. (2004). Auctions: theory and practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoeber, C., & Thurman, W. (1994). Testing the theory of tournaments: an empirical analysis of broiler production. Journal of Labor Economics, 12, 155–179. 10.1086/298354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, K., & Kovenock, D. (2010). Contests with stochastic abilities. Economic Inquiry, 48, 89–103. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2008.00178.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kräkel, M. (2007). Doping and cheating in contest-like situations. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 988–1006. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2006.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazear, E. (1999). Personnel economics: past lessons and future directions. Journal of Labor Economics, 17, 199–236. 10.1086/209918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, W., Matros, A., & Turocy, T. (2012). Bounded rationality and group size in Tullock contests: experimental evidence. Working paper. Available at http://ihome.ust.hk/~wooyoung/index.html/lotteries-20120615.pdf.Google Scholar
Mago, S., Savikhin, A., & Sheremeta, R. (2012). Facing your opponents: social identification and information feedback in contests. Chapman University, ESI working paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, D. (2010). The desire to win: the effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 139–146. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malueg, D., & Yates, A. (2004). Rent seeking with private values. Public Choice, 119, 161–178. 10.1023/B:PUCH.0000024166.63342.09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malueg, D., & Yates, A. (2006). Equilibria in rent-seeking contests with homogeneous success functions. Economic Theory, 27, 719–727. 10.1007/s00199-004-0554-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, R., & Palfrey, T. (1995). Quantal response equilibrium for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38. 10.1006/game.1995.1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millner, E., & Pratt, M. (1989). An experimental investigation of efficient rent-seeking. Public Choice, 62, 139–151. 10.1007/BF00124330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millner, E., & Pratt, M. (1991). Risk aversion and rent seeking: an extension and some experimental evidence. Public Choice, 69, 91–92. 10.1007/BF00123856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1067–1101. 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C., & Silver, J. (2006). Behavior in all pay auctions with incomplete information. Games and Economic Behavior, 55, 189–206. 10.1016/j.geb.2005.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öncüler, A., & Croson, R. (2005). Strategic rent seeking: an experimental investigation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17, 403–429. 10.1177/0951629805056895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parco, J., Rapoport, A., & Amaldoss, W. (2005). Two-stage contests with budget constraints: an experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 320–338. 10.1016/j.jmp.2005.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potters, J., De Vries, C., & Van Linden, F. (1998). An experimental examination of rational rent seeking. European Journal of Political Economy, 14, 783–800. 10.1016/S0176-2680(98)00037-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogrebna, G. (2008). Learning the type of the opponent in imperfectly discriminating contests with asymmetric information. SSRN working paper available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1259329.Google Scholar
Price, C., & Sheremeta, R. (2011). Endowment effects in contests. Economics Letters, 111, 217–219. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryvkin, D. (2009). Fatigue in dynamic tournaments. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Ryvkin, D. (2010). Contests with private costs: beyond two players. European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 558–567. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, D., Shupp, R., & Walker, J. (2006). Resource allocation contests: experimental evidence. CAEPR working paper, No 2006–004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, P., Shupp, R., Swope, K., & Cadigan, J. (2004). Multi-period rent-seeking contests with carryover: theory and experimental evidence. Economics of Governance, 5, 187–211. 10.1007/s10101-004-0075-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonbeek, L., & Winkel, B. (2006). Activity and inactivity in a rent-seeking contest with private information. Public Choice, 127, 123–132. 10.1007/s11127-006-7974-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schotter, A., & Weigelt, K. (1992). Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws and affirmative action: some experimental results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 511–539. 10.2307/2118480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremeta, R. (2010). Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 731–747. 10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremeta, R. (2011). Contest design: an experimental investigation. Economic Inquiry, 49, 573–590. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00274.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremeta, R. (2013). Overbidding and heterogeneous behavior in contest experiments. Journal of Economic Surveys (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J., & Baik, K. (1991). Reexamining efficient rent-seeking in laboratory markets. Public Choice, 69, 69–79. 10.1007/BF00123855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, W. (2002). Asymmetric rent seeking with more than two contestants. Public Choice, 113, 325–336. 10.1023/A:1020877410243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sui, Y. (2009). Rent-seeking contests with private values and resale. Public Choice, 138, 409–422. 10.1007/s11127-008-9366-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szymanski, S. (2003). The economic design of sporting contests: a review. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1137–1187. 10.1257/jel.41.4.1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. (1995). Diggin for golden carrots: an analysis of research tournaments. The American Economic Review, 85, 872–890.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. Buchanan, J., Tollison, R., & Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. Toward a theory of rent seeking society, Austin: Texas A&M University Press 97–112.Google Scholar
Wärneryd, K. (2003). Information in conflicts. Journal of Economic Theory, 110, 121–136. 10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00006-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimann, J., Yang, C., & Vogt, C. (2000). An experiment on sequential rent seeking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 41, 405–426. 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00083-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, D. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13, 75–98. 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brookins and Ryvkin supplementary material

Brookins and Ryvkin supplementary material
Download Brookins and Ryvkin supplementary material(File)
File 142.4 KB