Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:07:42.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Direction Theory and the Winner's Curse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Reinhard Selten,
Klaus Abbink and
Ricarda Cox
Reinhard Selten*
Affiliation:
University of Bonn
Klaus Abbink*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Ricarda Cox
Affiliation:
University of Bonn
*
email: rselten@wiwi.uni-bonn.de
email: klaus.abbink@nottingham.ac.uk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report an experiment on a decision task by Samuelson and Bazerman (1985). Subjects submit a bid for an item with an unknown value. A winner's curse phenomenon arises when subjects bid too high and make losses. Learning direction theory can account for this. However, other influences on behaviour can also be identified. We introduce impulse balance theory to make quantitative predictions on the basis of learning direction theory. We also look at monotonic ladder processes. It is shown that for this kind of Markov chains the impulse balance point is connected to the mode of the stationary distribution.

Keywords

experimental economicslearningindividual decision making

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual BehaviorD81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and UncertaintyD83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 2005, pp. 5 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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

References

Abbink, K. and Sadrieh, A. (1995). “RatImage—Research Assistance Toolbox for Computer-Aided Human Behavior Experiments.” SFB Discussion Paper B-325, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G.A. (1970). “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S.B., Bazerman, H., and Carroll, J.S. (1991). “An Evaluation of Learning in the Bilateral Winner's Curse.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 48, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R.H. (1995). “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 110(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berninghaus, S. and Ehrhart, K.-M. (1998). “Time Horizon and Equilibrium Selection in Tacit Coordination Games: Experimental Results.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 37(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, R.R. and Mosteller, R. (1955). Stochastic Models of Learning. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. and Ho, T.H. (1999). “Experience-Weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games.” Econometrica. 67(4), 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capen, E.C., Clapp, R.V., and Campbell, W.M. (1971). “Competitive Bidding in High-Risk Situations.” Journal of Petroleum Technology. 23, 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T. and Friedman, D. (1997). “Price Formation in Single Call Markets.” Econometrica. 65(2), 311–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, B., Erev, I., and Yechiam, E. (2000). “Foregone with the Wind.” Mimeo, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Kagel, J.H. (1995). “Auctions.” In Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J.H. and Levin, D. (1999). “Common Value Auctions with Insider Information.” Econometrica. 67(5), 1219–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica. 47(2). 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuon, B. (1993). “Two-Person Bargaining with Incomplete Information.” Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 412. Springer-Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
Mitzkewitz, M. and Nagel, R. (1993). “Envy, Greed, and Anticipation in Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information.” International Journal of Game Theory., 22, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, R. (1995). “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review. 85(5), 1313–1326.Google Scholar
Roth, A. and Erev, I. (1995). “Learning in Extensive-Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamic Models in the Intermediate Term.” Games and Economic Behavior. 8, 164–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryll, W. (1996). “Litigation and Settlement in a Game with Incomplete Information.” Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems vol. 440. Springer-Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
Sadrieh, A. (1998). “The Alternating Double Auction Market: A Game Theoretic and Experimental Investigation.” Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 466. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W.F. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985). “The Winner's Curse in Bilateral Negotiations.” In Smith, V.L. (ed.), Research in Experimental Economics. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Scholz, R.W. (1987). Cognitive Strategies in Stochastic Thinking. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. and Buchta, J. (1999). “Experimental Sealed-Bid First Price Auctions with Directly Observed Bid Functions.” In Budescu, D., Erev, I., and Zwick, R. (eds.), Games and Human Behavior: Essays in the Honor of Amnon Rapoport. NJ: Lawrenz Associates Mahwah.Google Scholar
Selten, R. and Stoecker, R. (1986). “End Behavior in Sequences of Finite Prisoners’ Dilemma Supergames: A Learning Theory Approach.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 7, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar