IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v40y2012i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Anderson
  • Beth Freeborn
  • Jason Hulbert

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between collusive behavior in Bertrand oligopoly experiments and subject heterogeneity in risk preferences. We find that risk aversion is positively associated with tacit collusion when the goods are complements, but find no evidence of collusive behavior when the goods are substitutes. Furthermore, risk aversion is associated with lower prices with complement goods, but does not impact pricing behavior with substitute goods. In both treatments, we find that subjects tend to follow the price change of the other seller. In the complements treatment, however, this tendency increases with the degree of risk aversion.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Anderson & Beth Freeborn & Jason Hulbert, 2012. "Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 40(1), pages 37-50, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:37-50
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-011-9330-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11151-011-9330-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-011-9330-8?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2009. "Cooperation in Experimental Games of Strategic Complements and Substitutes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1125-1147.
    3. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn & Charles A. Holt, 2008. "Tacit Collusion in Price-Setting Duopoly Markets: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 73, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    4. Neugebauer, Tibor & Perote, Javier & Schmidt, Ulrich & Loos, Malte, 2009. "Selfish-biased conditional cooperation: On the decline of contributions in repeated public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 52-60, February.
    5. Pablo Brañas Garza & Francisca Jiménez Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2004. "Strategic Uncertainty and Risk Attitudes:"The Experimental Connection"," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/12, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    7. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    8. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn & Charles A. Holt, 2010. "Tacit Collusion in Price-Setting Duopoly Markets: Experimental Evidence with Complements and Substitutes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 577-591, January.
    9. Marie Claire Villeval, 2007. "Cooperation and Competition: An Intergenerational Field and Laboratory Experiment," Post-Print halshs-00257880, HAL.
    10. Sigrid Suetens & Jan Potters, 2007. "Bertrand colludes more than Cournot," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 71-77, March.
    11. M. Levati & Andrea Morone & Annamaria Fiore, 2009. "Voluntary contributions with imperfect information: An experimental study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 199-216, January.
    12. Davis, Douglas, 2011. "Behavioral convergence properties of Cournot and Bertrand markets: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 443-458.
    13. Christoph Engel, 2007. "How Much Collusion? A Meta-Analysis Of Oligopoly Experiments," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 491-549.
    14. Millner, Edward L & Pratt, Michael D, 1991. "Risk Aversion and Rent-Seeking: An Extension and Some Experimental Evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 81-92, February.
    15. Asplund, Marcus, 2002. "Risk-averse firms in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 995-1012, September.
    16. Feinberg, Robert M & Husted, Thomas A, 1993. "An Experimental Test of Discount-Rate Effects on Collusive Behaviour in Duopoly Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 153-160, June.
    17. Mohamed Jellal & François-Charles Wolff, 2005. "Free Entry under Uncertainty," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 39-63, July.
    18. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    19. Charness, Gary & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2007. "Cooperation, Competition, and Risk Attitudes: An Intergenerational Field and Laboratory Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 2574, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & Georgantzis, Nikolaos, 2002. "Accounting for risk aversion in repeated prisoners' dilemma games: an experimental test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50, May.
    21. Albert Banal‐Estañol & Marco Ottaviani, 2006. "Mergers with Product Market Risk," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 577-608, September.
    22. Geczy, Christopher & Minton, Bernadette A & Schrand, Catherine, 1997. "Why Firms Use Currency Derivatives," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1323-1354, September.
    23. Nance, Deana R & Smith, Clifford W, Jr & Smithson, Charles W, 1993. "On the Determinants of Corporate Hedging," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 267-284, 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. Richards, Timothy & Liaukonyte, Jura & Nadia, Streletskya, 2016. "Personalized Pricing and Price Fairness," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235809, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Nicolas Pasquier & Olivier Bonroy & Alexis Garapin, 2022. "Risk aversion and equilibrium selection in a vertical contracting setting: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 585-614, November.
    3. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn & Jason P. Hulbert, 2015. "Determinants of Tacit Collusion in a Cournot Duopoly Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 633-652, January.
    4. Wentao Yi & Chunqiao Tan, 2019. "Bertrand Game with Nash Bargaining Fairness Concern," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-22, August.
    5. Richards, Timothy J. & Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A., 2016. "Personalized pricing and price fairness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 138-153.
    6. Yonezawa, Koichi & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Risk Aversion and Preference for Store Price Format," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-23.

    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. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn & Jason P. Hulbert, 2015. "Determinants of Tacit Collusion in a Cournot Duopoly Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 633-652, January.
    2. Masiliūnas, Aidas & Nax, Heinrich H., 2020. "Framing and repeated competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 604-619.
    3. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    4. Argenton, Cédric & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Müller, Wieland, 2024. "Cournot meets Bayes-Nash: A discontinuity in behavior in finitely repeated duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    6. Olli Lappalainen, 2018. "Cooperation and Strategic Complementarity: An Experiment with Two Voluntary Contribution Mechanism Games with Interior Equilibria," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Matt Van Essen & William B. Hankins, 2013. "Tacit Collusion in Price‐Setting Oligopoly: A Puzzle Redux," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 703-726, January.
    8. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    9. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    10. Davis, Douglas, 2011. "Behavioral convergence properties of Cournot and Bertrand markets: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 443-458.
    11. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2011. "Oligopoly as a Socially Embedded Dilemma. An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Meunier, Guy, 2013. "Risk aversion and technology mix in an electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 866-874.
    13. Guy Meunier, 2014. "Risk Aversion and Technology Portfolios," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(4), pages 347-365, June.
    14. Lenka Fiala & Sigrid Suetens, 2017. "Transparency and cooperation in repeated dilemma games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 755-771, December.
    15. Brookins, Philip & Lightle, John P. & Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2015. "An experimental study of sorting in group contests," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 16-25.
    16. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    17. Mohamed Jellal & François-Charles Wolff, 2005. "Free Entry under Uncertainty," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 39-63, July.
    18. Barthel, Anne-Christine & Hoffmann, Eric & Monaco, Andrew, 2019. "Coordination and learning in games with strategic substitutes and complements," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 53-65.
    19. Miriam Al Lily, 2023. "Establishing human connections: experimental evidence from the helping game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 805-832, September.
    20. Emanuela Lezzi & Piers Fleming & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "Does it matter which effort task you use? A comparison of four effort tasks when agents compete for a prize," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bertrand duopoly; Collusion; Experiment; Risk aversion; C9; L1;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    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:kap:revind:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:37-50. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.