IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20010089.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should the Same Side of the Market always move first in a Transaction? An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Eline C.M. van der Heijden

    (Tilburg University)

  • Jan H.M. Nelissen

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Harrie A.A. Verbon

    (Tilburg University)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether transactions where the buyer (or the seller) always moves first, andthe seller (or the buyer) always moves second in the exchange gives higher payoffs than exchangesin which it is randomly determined who moves first. We examine the effect of two treatmentvariables: Partners versus Strangers and fixed versus changing positions. We find that both withfixed and with changing positions, second movers take advantage of their position by exploitingthe first mover by "not delivering" the demanded good. However, with fixed positions exploitationoccurs significantly less while reciprocal exchanges happen more often. In spite of this, it turns outthat with fixed positions payoffs are very unevenly distributed. Unequal payoff distributions occurboth under Partners and Strangers, but they appear to be more extreme among Strangers.

Suggested Citation

  • Eline C.M. van der Heijden & Jan H.M. Nelissen & Harrie A.A. Verbon, 2001. "Should the Same Side of the Market always move first in a Transaction? An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20010089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/01089.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Forsythe, Robert & Lundholm, Russell & Rietz, Thomas, 1999. "Cheap Talk, Fraud, and Adverse Selection in Financial Markets: Some Experimental Evidence," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(3), pages 481-518.
    3. van der Heijden, E.C.M. & Nelissen, J.H.M. & Potters, J.J.M. & Verbon, H.A.A., 1999. "Simple and Complex Gift Exchange in the Laboratory," Other publications TiSEM 7113ef4c-8507-44e5-b1e9-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Georg Kirchsteiger & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 437-459.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    6. Lensberg, T. & van der Heijden, E.C.M., 1998. "A cross-cultural study of reciprocity, trust and altruism in a gift exchange experiment," Discussion Paper 1998-77, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Van der Heijden, Eline C. M. & Nelissen, Jan H. M. & Potters, Jan J. M. & Verbon, Harrie A. A., 1998. "The poverty game and the pension game: The role of reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 5-41, February.
    8. van der Heijden, Eline C M, et al, 2001. "Simple and Complex Gift Exchange in the Laboratory," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 280-297, April.
    9. Ernst FEHR & Simon GÄCHTER & Georg KIRCHSTEIGER, 1994. "Reciprocal Fairness and Noncompensating Wage Differentials," Vienna Economics Papers vie9401, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    11. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Rapoport, Amnon, 1998. "The limitations of the positional order effect: Can it support silent threats and non-equilibrium behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 313-325, February.
    12. Weimann, Joachim, 1994. "Individual behaviour in a free riding experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 185-200, June.
    13. Croson, Rachel T. A., 1996. "Partners and strangers revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 25-32, October.
    14. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    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. Charness, Gary & Corominas-Bosch, Margarida & Frechette, Guillaume R., 2007. "Bargaining and network structure: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 28-65, September.

    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. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    2. Gulyás, Attila, 2007. "A méltányosságelmélet alapjai. Modellek és nézőpontok [The foundations of quity theory. Models and viewpoints]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 167-183.
    3. Potters, J.J.M. & Sefton, M. & Vesterlund, L., 2001. "Why Announce Leadership Contributions? An Experimental Study of the Signaling and Reciprocity Hypotheses," Other publications TiSEM bf38dd2e-5f10-46ae-bb21-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Irlenbusch, Bernd & Sliwka, Dirk, 2005. "Transparency and reciprocal behavior in employment relations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 383-403, March.
    5. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Sopher, Barry & Strand, Paul, 2002. "Cooperation in social dilemmas, trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 231-249, April.
    6. Simon G�chter & Ernst Fehr, "undated". "Fairness in the Labour Market � A Survey of Experimental Results," IEW - Working Papers 114, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Grossmann, Volker, 2002. "Is it rational to internalize the personal norm that one should reciprocate?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 27-48, February.
    8. van der Heijden, E.C.M. & Nelissen, J.H.M. & Potters, J.J.M. & Verbon, H.A.A., 1999. "Simple and Complex Gift Exchange in the Laboratory," Other publications TiSEM 7113ef4c-8507-44e5-b1e9-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Antonio Filippin & Manuela Raimondi, 2016. "The Patron Game with Heterogeneous Endowments: A Case Against Inequality Aversion," De Economist, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 69-81, March.
    10. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    11. Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg, 2004. "A theory of sequential reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 268-298, May.
    12. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    13. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    14. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    15. Charles Figuières & David Masclet & Marc Willinger, 2013. "Weak Moral Motivation Leads to the Decline of Voluntary Contributions," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(5), pages 745-772, October.
    16. Ginny Seung Choi & Virgil Henry Storr, 2018. "Market institutions and the evolution of culture," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 243-265, December.
    17. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    18. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharn, 2003. "Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 875, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Rachel T. A. Croson, 2007. "Theories Of Commitment, Altruism And Reciprocity: Evidence From Linear Public Goods Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(2), pages 199-216, April.
    20. Ginny Seung Choi & Virgil Henry Storr, 2020. "Market interactions, trust and reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-32, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experiments; exchange; partners; role assignment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20010089. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.