Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:19:00.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simultaneous versus sequential all-pay auctions: an experimental study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Lian Jian ,
Zheng Li  and
Tracy Xiao Liu
Lian Jian*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Zheng Li*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Tracy Xiao Liu*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
*
ljian@usc.edu
lizh4.12@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn
liuxiao@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While both simultaneous and sequential contests are mechanisms used in practice such as crowdsourcing, job interviews and sports contests, few studies have directly compared their performance. By modeling contests as incomplete information all-pay auctions with linear costs, we analytically and experimentally show that the expected maximum effort is higher in simultaneous contests, in which contestants choose their effort levels independently and simultaneously, than in sequential contests, in which late entrants make their effort choices after observing all prior participants’ choices. Our experimental results also show that efficiency is higher in simultaneous contests than in sequential ones. Sequential contests’ efficiency drops significantly as the number of contestants increases. We also discover that when participants’ ability follows a power distribution, high ability players facing multiple opponents in simultaneous contests tend to under-exert effort, compared to theoretical predictions. We explain this observation using a simple model of overconfidence.

Keywords

Sequential all-pay auctionsExperiment

JEL classification

C7: Game Theory and Bargaining Theory C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 648 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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/s10683-016-9504-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Alicke, MD, Klotz, ML, Breitenbecher, DL, Yurak, TJ, & Vredenburg, DS (2004). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804–825. 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, S, Falk, A, & Wibral, M (2012). Promotions and incentives: The case of multistage elimination tournaments. Journal of Labor Economics, 30(1), 149–174. 10.1086/662130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amegashie, JA, Cadsby, CB, & Song, Y (2007). Competitive Burnout: Theory and Experimental Evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), 213–239. 10.1016/j.geb.2006.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, SP, Goeree, JK, & Holt, CA (1998). Rent seeking with bounded rationality: An analysis of the all-pay auction. Journal of Political Economy, 106(4), 828–853. 10.1086/250031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archak, N., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Attracting the best and the brightest: Asymptotics and optimal prize structure of all-pay contests with heterogeneous participants. Working paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barut, Y, Kovenock, D, & Noussair, C (2002). A comparison of multiple-unit all-pay and winner-pay auctions under incomplete information. International Economic Review, 43(3), 675–708. 10.1111/1468-2354.t01-1-00031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baye, MR, Kovenock, D, & de Vries, CG (2005). Comparative analysis of litigation systems: An auction-theoretic approach. The Economic Journal, 115(505), 583–601. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01010.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, M, & Meier, S (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281. 10.1007/s10683-007-9192-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, M, Engelmann, D, Koch, AK, & Normann, HT (2010). Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem?. Experimental Economics, 13(4), 412–438. 10.1007/s10683-010-9249-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, AC, Gelbach, JB, & Miller, DL (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 414–427. 10.1162/rest.90.3.414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J, Holmes, J, & Matthews, PH (2008). Charity auctions: A field experiment. The Economic Journal, 118(525), 92–113. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02105.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, Gneezy, U, & Imas, A (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 87, 43–51. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chawla, S., & Hartline, J. D. (2013). Auctions with unique equilibria. In Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on electronic commerce, 2013 (pp. 181–196).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chawla, S., Hartline, J. D., & Sivan, B. (2012). Optimal crowdsourcing contests. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM–SIAM symposium on discrete Algorithms, 2012 (pp. 856–868).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Che, Y-K, & Gale, I (2003). Optimal design of research contests. American Economic Review, 93(3), 646–671. 10.1257/000282803322157025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D, & Fang, H (2008). Understanding overbidding in second price auctions: An experimental study. The Economic Journal, 118(532), 1572–1595. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02181.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P Stiglitz, JE, & Mathewson, F (1986). The theory of technological competition. New developments in the analysis of market structures, London: Macmillan 519–548. 10.1007/978-1-349-18058-5_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, DD, & Reilly, RJ (1998). Do too many cooks spoil the stew? An experimental analysis of rent-seeking and the role of a strategic buyer. Public Choice, 95(1), 89–115. 10.1023/A:1004916624881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechenaux, E, Kovenock, D, & Sheremeta, RM (2015). A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Experimental Economics, 18(4), 609–669. 10.1007/s10683-014-9421-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, A (1987). Strategic behavior in contests. The American Economic Review, 77(5), 891–898.Google Scholar
Eckel, CC, & Grossman, PJ (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281–295. 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00097-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fibich, G, Gavious, A, & Sela, A (2006). All-pay auctions with risk-averse players. International Journal of Game Theory, 34(4), 583–599. 10.1007/s00182-006-0034-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Q (2006). Endogenous timing of contest with asymmetric information. Public Choice, 129(1), 1–23. 10.1007/s11127-006-8325-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Q, & Lu, J (2012). The optimal multi-stage contest. Economic Theory, 51(2), 351–382. 10.1007/s00199-009-0463-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U, & Smorodinsky, R (2006). All-pay auction: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61(2), 255–275. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradstein, M, & Konrad, KA (1999). Orchestrating rent seeking contests. The Economic Journal, 109(458), 536–545. 10.1111/1468-0297.00461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, B., Rentschler, L., & Sarin, R. (2010). Asymmetric information in contests: Theory and experiments. Working paper.Google Scholar
Harris, C, & Vickers, J (1985). Perfect equilibrium in a model of a race. Review of Economic Studies, 52(2), 193–209. 10.2307/2297616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C, & Vickers, J (1987). Racing with uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 54(1), 1–21. 10.2307/2297442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, GW, & List, JA (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055. 10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, AL, & Riley, JG (1989). Politically contestable rents and transfers. Economics and Politics, 1(1), 17–40. 10.1111/j.1468-0343.1989.tb00003.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, CA, & Laury, SK (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irfanoglu, Z., Mago, S., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2015). New Hampshire effect: Behavior in sequential and simultaneous election contests. MPRA paper, October 2015 (pp. 1–36).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, LB, & Lakhani, KR (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. 10.1287/orsc.1090.0491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klumpp, T, & Polborn, MK (2006). Primaries and the new Hampshire effect. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6–7), 1073–1114. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, KA (2009). Strategy and dynamics in contests, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, KA, & Leininger, W (2007). The generalized Stackelberg equilibrium of the all-pay auction with complete information. Review of Economic Design, 11(2), 165–174. 10.1007/s10058-007-0029-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, V, & Morgan, J (1997). An analysis of the war of attrition and the all-pay auction. Journal of Economic Theory, 72(2), 343–362. 10.1006/jeth.1996.2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazear, EP, & Rosen, S (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. The Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864. 10.1086/261010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leininger, W (1993). More efficient rent-seeking—A Munchhausen solution. Public Choice, 75(1), 43–62. 10.1007/BF01053880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, T. X. (2015). All-pay auctions with endogenous bid timing: An experimental study. Working paper.Google Scholar
Liu, TX, Yang, J, Adamic, LA, & Chen, Y (2014). Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on Taskcn. Management Science, 60(8), 2020–2037. 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mago, SD, Sheremeta, RM, & Yates, A (2013). Best-of-three contest experiments; strategic versus psychological momentum. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(3), 287–296. 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2012.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiliunas, A., Mengel, F., & Reiss, J. P. (2014). Behavioral variation in Tullock contests. Working paper.Google Scholar
Mermer, A. G. (2013). Contests with expectation-based loss-averse players. Working paper.Google Scholar
Moldovanu, B, & Sela, A (2006). Contest architecture. Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1), 70–96. 10.1016/j.jet.2004.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, DA, & Healy, PJ (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, J (2003). Sequential contests. Public Choice, 116(1), 1–18. 10.1023/A:1024252514806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, W, & Schotter, A (2010). Workaholics and dropouts in organizations. Journal of the European Economics Association, 8(4), 717–743. 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2010.tb00538.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, RB (1981). Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research, 6(1), 58–73. 10.1287/moor.6.1.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalebuff, BJ, & Stiglitz, JE (1983). Prizes and incentives: Towards a general theory of compensation and competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 14(1), 21–43. 10.2307/3003535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C, & Silver, J (2006). Behavior in all-pay auctions with incomplete information. Games and Economic Behavior, 55(1), 189–206. 10.1016/j.geb.2005.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyarko, Y, & Schotter, A (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70(3), 971–1005. 10.1111/1468-0262.00316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C, & Smith, V (1978). An experimental examination of two exchange institutions. Review of Economic Studies, 45(1), 133–153. 10.2307/2297090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potters, J, de Vries, CG, & van Winden, F (1998). An experimental examination of rational rent-seeking. European Journal of Political Economy, 14(4), 783–800. 10.1016/S0176-2680(98)00037-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, S (1986). Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. American Economic Review, 76(4), 701–715.Google Scholar
Segev, E, & Sela, A (2014). Multi-stage sequential all-pay auctions. European Economic Review, 70, 371–382. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwiesch, C, & Xu, Y (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543. 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, G (1980). Efficient rent seeking, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, R. J. (1985). Auctions and competitive bidding. In Young, H. Peyton (Ed.), Fair allocation, American Mathematical Society proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics (Vol. 33, pp. 143–170). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, & Wang, RQ (2009). The role of information revelation in elimination contests. Economic Journal, 119(536), 613–641. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02234.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jian et al. supplementary material

Online Appendices
Download Jian et al. supplementary material(File)
File 167.6 KB