Theory and Behavior of Multiple Unit Discriminative Auctions

This paper reports the results of controlled experiments designed to test the HarrisRaviv generalization of the Vickrey theory of bidding in multiple unit discriminative auctions. The paper also discusses further development of the theory-in a way suggested by the experimental results-to include bidders with distinct risk preferences. IN A WELL-KNOWN PAPER, Vickrey [20] formulated a Nash equilibrium model of bidding by risk neutral economic agents in single unit auctions. This analysis was subsequently extended in numerous papers. Vickrey [21] generalized his original model to include multiple unit auctions in which each of N risk neutral bidders can bid on one out of a total of Q homogeneous items up for auction, where 1 c Q < N. In both of the Vickrey papers, individual values for the auctioned object(s) were assumed to be drawn from a uniform distribution. Holt [12] and Riley and Samuelson [19] for single unit auctions and Harris and Raviv [11] for multiple unit auctions have extended the Vickrey model to the case in which valuations are from a general distribution function and all agents have identical concave utility functions.' This paper reports the empirical properties of individual bidding behavior and seller revenue for a group of 28 laboratory experiments designed to test the Harris-Raviv generalization of the Vickrey (hereafter, VHR) model of Nash equilibrium behavior in multiple unit discriminative auctions. In Section I, we summarize briefly the theoretical results of the VHR model which form the basis for the hypotheses that we test. Section II describes the experimental design that we use. Section III describes the experimental results and various tests based on the bidding behavior of individual subjects and on aggregate market (seller revenue) data. The results from six of the ten (N, Q) parameter designs reported

[1]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[2]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[3]  S. Chew A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox , 1983 .

[4]  M. Harris,et al.  ALLOCATION MECHANISMS AND THE DESIGN OF AUCTIONS , 1981 .

[5]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  A theory of auctions and competitive bidding , 1982 .

[6]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[7]  V. Smith,et al.  INCENTIVES AND BEHAVIOR IN ENGLISH, DUTCH AND SEALED‐BID AUCTIONS , 1980 .

[8]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Competitive Bidding for Contracts under Alternative Auction Procedures , 1980, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[10]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Expected Revenue in Discriminative and Uniform Price Sealed-Bid Auctions , 1985 .

[11]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Auction market theory of heterogeneous bidders , 1982 .

[12]  I. Lakatos Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1976 .

[13]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Tests of a heterogeneous bidders theory of first price auctions , 1983 .

[14]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  A test that discriminates between two models of the Dutch-first auction non-isomorphism , 1983 .