IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v84y2020ics2214804319301831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loss aversion and sunk cost sensitivity in all-pay auctions for charity: Theory and experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Foster, Joshua

Abstract

This paper theoretically and experimentally studies the role of two behavioral biases in all-pay auctions for charity. The theory is developed to predict the effect of loss aversion in the first-price all-pay auction and sunk cost sensitivity in the war of attrition. Using controlled laboratory experiments, auction treatments are designed to test for the presence of these biases. In support of the theory, the results indicate that revenues in incremental bidding mechanisms such as the war of attrition rely on bidders who are sunk cost sensitive. It is shown that this behavioral response can be curbed significantly with a commitment device. Likewise, the results of the experimental first-price all-pay auctions find evidence of loss aversion, which reduces bidders’ average bid. These findings help explain the inconsistencies in revenues from previous all-pay auction studies and indicate a mechanism preference based on the distribution of these behavioral characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Foster, Joshua, 2020. "Loss aversion and sunk cost sensitivity in all-pay auctions for charity: Theory and experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:84:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319301831
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.101486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804319301831
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101486?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hannah Hörisch & Oliver Kirchkamp, 2010. "Less fighting than expected," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 347-367, July.
    2. Foster, Joshua, 2014. "Putting social preferences to work: Can revealed preferences predict real effort provision?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 128-140.
    3. Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. Vries, 1996. "The all-pay auction with complete information," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 209-223, Springer.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Holmes, Jessica & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2014. "“Bucket auctions” for charity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 260-276.
    6. Chen, Zhuoqiong (Charlie) & Ong, David & Segev, Ella, 2017. "Heterogeneous risk/loss aversion in complete information all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 23-37.
    7. A. Colin Cameron & Douglas L. Miller, 2015. "A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 317-372.
    8. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium: I. Observable Actions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 191-219, October.
    9. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    10. Ryan Oprea & Bart J. Wilson & Arthur Zillante, 2013. "War Of Attrition: Evidence From A Laboratory Experiment On Market Exit," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(4), pages 2018-2027, October.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Bilodeau, Marc & Childs, Jason & Mestelman, Stuart, 2004. "Volunteering a public service: an experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(12), pages 2839-2855, December.
    13. Paul Klemperer & Jeremy Bulow, 1999. "The Generalized War of Attrition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 175-189, March.
    14. John Morgan & Martin Sefton, 2000. "Funding Public Goods with Lotteries: Experimental Evidence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 785-810.
    15. Mark Isaac & Svetlana Pevnitskaya & Tim C. Salmon, 2008. "Individual Behavior In Auctions with Price Proportional Benefits," Working Papers wp2008_07_01, Department of Economics, Florida State University.
    16. Jacob K. Goeree & Emiel Maasland & Sander Onderstal & John L. Turner, 2005. "How (Not) to Raise Money," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(4), pages 897-926, August.
    17. Damian S. Damianov & Ronald Peeters, 2018. "Prize‐Based Mechanisms For Fund‐Raising: Theory And Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1562-1584, July.
    18. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    19. John Morgan, 2000. "Financing Public Goods by Means of Lotteries," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 761-784.
    20. Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2013. "Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, October.
    21. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2013. "Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 72-85.
    22. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Brian McManus, 2010. "A Greater Price for a Greater Good? Evidence That Consumers Pay More for Charity-Linked Products," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 28-60, May.
    23. Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc & Michael H. Rothkopf (deceased), 2010. "Charitable Motives and Bidding in Charity Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 399-413, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    2. Christopher Oconnor & Li Zhang & Cary Deck, 2022. "An examination of the effect of inequality on lotteries for funding public goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(4), pages 733-755, August.
    3. Kim, Huong Trang & Nguyen, Quang, 2022. "Managers’ loss aversion and firm debt financing: Some insights from Vietnamese SMEs," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    4. Huong Trang Kim, 2023. "Linking Trait Affectivity, Cognitive Ability, and Preferences Among Top Managers: Insights From a Lab-In-The-Field Experiment," Evaluation Review, , vol. 47(3), pages 479-503, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    2. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2014. "Economic incentives and social preferences: Causal evidence of non-separability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 273-289.
    3. Damian S. Damianov & Ronald Peeters, 2018. "Prize‐Based Mechanisms For Fund‐Raising: Theory And Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1562-1584, July.
    4. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Mill, Wladislaw, 2021. "Spite vs. risk: Explaining overbidding in the second-price all-pay auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 616-635.
    5. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Single versus multiple-prize all-pay auctions to finance public goods: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 677-688.
    6. Xue, Lian & Sitzia, Stefania & Turocy, Theodore L., 2023. "Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Duffy, John & Matros, Alexander, 2021. "All-pay auctions versus lotteries as provisional fixed-prize fundraising mechanisms: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 434-464.
    8. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "When less is more: Rationing and rent dissipation in stochastic contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 170-183.
    9. Natalie Struwe & Esther Blanco & James M. Walker, 2024. "Competition among public good providers for donor rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 215-243, March.
    10. Peter Katuscak & Tomas Miklanek, 2018. "Do Fixed-Prize Lotteries Crowd Out Public Good Contributions Driven by Social Preferences?," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp617, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    11. Ernan Haruvy & Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc, 2015. "The Loser’s Bliss in Auctions with Price Externality," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-23, July.
    12. Oliver Kirchkamp & Wladislaw Mill, 2019. "Spite vs. risk: explaining overbidding," CESifo Working Paper Series 7631, CESifo.
    13. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2013. "Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Henrik Orzen, 2005. "Fundraising through Competition: Evidence from the Lab," Discussion Papers 2005-04, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Foster, Joshua & Haley, M. Ryan, 2022. "Charity auctions as assets: Theory and simulations of fundraising risk management in mean-variance space," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Michele Fioretti, 2022. "Caring or Pretending to Care? Social Impact, Firms' Objectives, and Welfare (former title: Social Responsibility and Firm's Objectives)," SciencePo Working papers hal-03393065, HAL.
    18. Paul Pecorino, 2013. "Monopolistic Competition and Public Good Provision with By‐product Firms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 875-893, December.
    19. Lange, Andreas & List, John A. & Price, Michael K., 2007. "A fundraising mechanism inspired by historical tontines: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1750-1782, September.
    20. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions; Market design; Charitable giving;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:84:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319301831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.